Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 59

message: I think it's rather intellectualy dishonest to constantly push africans off as, er, "retarded" in face of things like this:
http://www.thecoupmagazine.com/content/view/45/47/
"Another difference that commentators writing on the study noted, though that was not explicitly stated in the study, involves work ethic. As a direct result of pressure to succeed, many black immigrants, much like immigrants from other nations, outperform their American peers. According to U.S. census data from 2000, “black immigrants from Africa averaged the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country,” with 43.8% of African immigrants having attained a degree at an institution of higher learning in comparison to 42.5% of Asian-Americans, 28.9% of immigrants from Europe and Canada, and 23.1 of the entire U.S. population (Page, "Black Immigrants Collect"). In addition, black immigrants make up 40% of the black student population enrolled in Ivy League education institutions, while they only comprise 13 percent of the black population in the United States as a whole (Wu, "Immigrants Comprise"). "
Bare in mind that immigrants don't get affirmative action. If the average african IQ were that low, or even somewhere in the 70's, people like this would be rare to non-existant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.136.64 (talk) 22:24, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
:Actually, studies indicate that most genotypically intelligent blacks live in Africa. 
:Also, the black immigrants do benefit from Affirmative Action. See: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174562/posts
:The figure reflects the sad reality how Western countries are draining Africa of its best brains. 
:MoritzB 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the average IQ may be 70 to 80, doesn't mean there aren't exceptional, high performing Africans.  Think of it in group terms, not individual.  Furthermore, you may have even hinted at something yourself; perhaps the high IQ Africans leave Africa, therefore perpetuating the low IQ??--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The genotypic IQ of Africans is 80 according to Lynn. The University of Witwatersrand is actually rather prestigious. MoritzB 00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you realize that 1) "genotypic intelligence" is meaningless in this (when we are really talking about extrapolated IQ scores), and Lynn and his cohorts have been roundly criticized for the poor quality of the data thay used to arrive at their score, and the selection bias that allowed them to get those scores.--Ramdrake 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, Lynn's results have been succesfully replicated by many independent researchers.MoritzB 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African IQ 

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

message: What exactly is it that's in such dispute so as to cause this article's protection status? W.M. O'Quinlan 20:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one or two POV pushers. Muntuwandi 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing what (besides the obvious)? W.M. O'Quinlan 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected status 

message: why does this article need to mention both?  
and why are people so desperate to prove that those of african descent really are the 'dumbest' people on earth?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.80.90 (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are racially different groups because black Americans have a substantial amount of European admixture. MoritzB 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually African Americans are different to Africans because their African ancestors are nearly all from west Africa. They are distinct because they do not represent an unbiased sampling of the African continent. Much the same way that non-Africans are all more similar to east Africans than any other Africans, because the origin of non-Africans is east Africa, and does not represent an unbiased sample of all the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. It follows that all non-Africans are more similar to some African groups than to others, it also follows that African Americans are more similar to some African groups than to other African groups. African Americans also have a large non-African ancestry, both European and Native American and a unique culture. Alun 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  black americans and africans 

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

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

message: "Cavalli himself has made significant contributions to the fight against racism. On several occasions he publicly debated Arthur Jensen and William Shockley arguing that environmental factors could explain the black white IQ gap."
This information does not relate to the evolutionary history of intelligence. It is misplaced and badly written. (What "fight against racism"???)
The chapter "prejudice and intelligence":
"A study done at a university known for its conservative values in the south of the US was carried out in order to determine whether a relationship existed between prejudice and IQ. Students were given an IQ test and a test that measures racial prejudice. The study found that students who scored lower on IQ tests were more prejudiced"
This article is about race and intelligence, not prejudice and intelligence. The information is irrelevant and badly written. ("A university known for its conservative values"???)
MoritzB 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above you are correct.  That study is not relevant for race and intelligence.  Prejudice relation to ignorance may very well be true, but that is irrelevant.  Unless you find a study linking prejudice and racism and stating the connection between that study and 'race and intelligence', unless you find a study linking them you cannot include it based on synthesis. Brusegadi 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Reinserting crap? What are you trying to say? I deleted those irrelevant sentences. You reinserted them. I do not defend their existence on Wikipedia.
Please explain why Cavalli-Sforza's "fight against racism" is relevant in this article. Furthermore, explain why possible correlation between some psychological trait (prejudice) and intelligence should be relevant in this article which is about race and intelligence. MoritzB 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why you can't see the relevance of (prejudice) in this article is beyond me. As prejudice (racist) is related to ignorance (intelligence). Jeeny (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: Unfortunately, this article does not seem to appropriately demonstrate an overall objective viewpoint. What I mean by this statement does not refer to the fact that issues mentioned are controversial. In fact, the lack of objectivity stems directly from the direction that this article follows when providing information. It seems apparent that the first sign of trouble comes immediately after reading the title. As this article itself admits (and I must apologize, but I do not intend to cite the specific reference within this article), there is a level of ambiguity involved with a concept such as "race". It appears to me that if such a concept is in dispute it should be relegated to a subsection of such an article, allowing for a title that actually describes what the article intends to discuss. Moreover, there is a need to distinguish this last, as the article appears to jointly describe how "genes influence intelligence" and "current racial controversies", a pair of topics that should not be displayed directly within the same section. 
Frank0570618 02:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Major Issue Regarding this Article 

message: This article needs to have a proper description of how evolutionary factors would affect intelligence over a short period of time (i.e. 65 000 years). In the discussion of "the evolutionary history of IQ" there are several scientific facts that have been overlooked with regard to evolutionary theory. For example, the claim that there would be any change in IQ from generation to generation is as close to Lamarkian reasoning as I have ever seen. This is very nearly done by the source cited (who, matter of fact, has a background in chemistry) to be arguing in favour of genetic variations in intelligence since the exist of humans from Africa. Specifically, the statement that the only variation needed would be 0.004 per generation can only be seen to be relevant if it is assumed that there will be genetic variability BETWEEN generations. Otherwise, it must simply be stated that there would need to be a change of 12 IQ points (IQ being a relative scale by the way, which I am sure environmental factors would have a dramatically greater influence on than genetic factors would--i.e. if you were to give an IQ test to a person 60 000 years ago, they would most certainly not score within an average range of today's values) over 65 000 years. As well it must be mentioned that the idea it is possible to accurately quantitatively measure the value of change in intelligence (a variable that must be acted upon by thousands of factors) is somewhat simplistic. 
Frank0570618 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: Why on earth does Wikipedia have ten articles on this topic, when it is unquestionably fringe science at best? Such vast coverage seems to confer an implicit authority on the topic, and so represents a kind of undue weight; where are the series of articles arguing the mainstream view that (i) 'race' is highly dubious as a scientific concept, (ii) 'intelligence' is almost as contentious (and extremely difficult to measure), and (iii) even if they are serious concepts, a link between the two has yet to be conclusively proven. If this is science at all (as opposed to psuedoscience), it is not an area that any significant number of biologists are concerned with - and rightly so, given how the main publishers and readers of this 'research' seem to be unapologetic racists.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these articles were created by POV-pushers, and while I appreciate the efforts of more reasonable editors to keep them neutral, the mere existence of so many articles on this topic is inherently non-neutral. I would suggest that at least some of them be deleted, and this material be cut down to a shorter length to more accurately represent the (lack of) scientific validity of the subject matter. Terraxos 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''How'' many articles on this subject? 

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

message: James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel laureate, writes in his 2007 book, "Avoid Boring People: Lessons From a Life in Science":
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically". "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
 --Jagz 06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe Dr. Watson's above statements are untrue? --Jagz 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether or not those specific statements are correct or not is unimportant. The fact is that there does not happen to be any relevant evidence to the contrary. In such a case, why should a relative layman who carries a considerable level of scientific influence in other areas make further claims than those which you have presented on the basis of what can only amount to opinion. It seems to me that he is either a fool, a bigot or simply too far past his prime to know the difference.
131.104.235.213 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know everything he wrote or said, only the controversial statements the press chose to publish. Maybe someone was asking him his opinion on certain topics and he answered, and then they chose to take everything he said that was likely to cause controversy and published it. --Jagz 00:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately for him, I really don't care which reason it is that is most responsible for his statements. Within about 10 minutes of looking I read exact quotes that were offensive to women, minorities (in terms of intelligence, sexual vigour and preference as well as work ethic) as well as people of different body masses. In each case, the statements represented ideas that related genetic factors (factors which there would be no possible way of proving causally) to numerous different ideas--ideas which, when stated, in any context would be considered offensive. At some point it must be admitted that whatever reason he might have for making such statements, the overall result is rather shameful.
131.104.235.213 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was 79, had won a Nobel prize, and was an atheist, I'd say what I believed too. --Jagz 04:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, yeah I suppose the most flattering way to look at the matter is that Watson is just a really big xxxxx. God, I hope no one quotes this--I am definitely not proud of such a comment.
131.104.235.213 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quite that simple. He's also out of touch, as a lot of people at that age are. (No offense to other 79+ year old Wikipedia editors intended.) I remember one of my grandmothers making some comments that were blatantly racist ("she was really nice for a black girl"), having no idea how that could be taken "the wrong way". These aren't bad people, they're a product of their times. (I.e., they were raised during more ignorant times.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jagz: Watson's opinions are of no interest to WP except perhaps to add to a "controversy" section on his WP bio. The fact that someone has won a Nobel prize does not legitimize random statements they make; they remain opinions and not verifiable facts, supported by science. Brian Josephson, Nobel laureate in physics, publicly supports the most far-fetched parts of fringe science; he has also publicly predicted in a Royal Mail leaflet that quantum mechanics will explain telepathy. He is not yet 79. However, the fact that MoritzB  and others are still promoting Watson's sentiments, after he has rather publicly retracted them, is quite disturbing. I do not think that the Science Museum in London, which withdrew its invitation to Watson, represents the Media or the Government; I would rather say it represents part of the UK science establishment. Does MoritzB claim otherwise? --Mathsci 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, Watson was suspended from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 6 days ago; he resigned from his position today. --Mathsci 21:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True statement 

message: This article is a shame for wikipedia. Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
Intelligence is hard to define (see par. on "definition", "Other definitions"). It is clearly not the same as IQ tests.
Likewise, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race#20th-_and_21st-Century_debates_over_race
Nobody agrees on what is or is not "human race".
This article seems to be about some comparison between IQ tests and human color skins. Either this article should be removed or its title changed.
Herve661 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the science behind this is contrversial, even questionable, some scientists have chosen to study the phenomenon, each giving his/her interpretation of the facts. As an encyclopedia, it is Wikipedia's duty to report neutrally on such things, including those who think this hypothesis has merit, and those who think it is pseudoscience, and that's what we tried to do here. If you have specific suggestions to improve this article, please do suggest; however, please take note that Wikipedia isn't censored.--Ramdrake 18:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this article be renamed << "Race" and "intelligence" >> (with quotes) or << IQ tests and "race" >>? It seems most of the references at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28References%29 either condemn the broad use of such terms or use quotes or clearly announce that the terms should not be understood as the usual meaning of "race" and "intelligence". The only one that use both terms (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm) basically say such comparison is not relevant. Herve661 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While I agree fully with Ramdrake. I also believe that in its current state this article does not represent a valid section of any encyclopaedia. Again, there are several required actions that must be taken. First, it must be shortened to describe what the article is actually about, namely a specific type of support for a "theory of race". With this in mind, the article should simply have a brief synopsis of what race may be, and the exact reason why it is considered controversial (specifically, no causal evidence). As long as the article makes such a statement (this being in particularly clear terms, mind you)--and it is therefore inferred by readers that much of what is described in the article may be incorrect--then there can be some elaboration on the subject. Further, it must be considered that for every point made in support of such a theory of race, there must be a support refuting it--this being a major reason why race is often not considered to be a valid construct. 
P.S. It would be advisable to make sure concepts such as evolution are not mucked up too much. 
131.104.235.213 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this isn't how Wikipedia works: we can't limit ourselves to exposing the tenets of the racialist researchers and then pose a value judgment saying they're almost certainly wrong. We are bound by policy to describe all significant positions in a debate without taking sides. And we can't do a tit-for-that of all arguments, either.--Ramdrake 11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: This should not be in this article. It's an original synthesis of sources and highly misleading. This article is on race and intelligence, not just race and IQ test scores. Richard Herrnstein,  Charles Murray, Gottfredson and Richard Lynn are all controversial figures and Flynn's numbers are taken out of context. (His point was to show how IQ changed over time) The overall impression this table gives is that these numbers are accurate reflections of the intelligences of people from various parts of the world, rather than IQ test scores, that are in some cases based on speculation rather than actual tests. (Especially Richard Lynn's numbers.)
We have had this debate before. and that is why the numbers were moved out of the main article. We decided that they were not main-stream enough to be included here. Nothing has changed. The entire section needs to go. futurebird 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree strongly. The debate is about explaining the measured differences in IQ test scores. MoritzB 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Rushton and Jensen are just two guys... but, hundreds of researchers have worked on this question. I think outlining 10 points' in support of their theory alone is over-kill. Environmental explanations are only briefly mentioned in the last paragraph of this section, even though they are what main-stream scientists support most often and the most fruitful areas of research. (We can show the socio economic factors and racism have a direct impact on test scores, the gentic explination is only based on data anaysis.) If you look at Race and intelligence (Explanations) you'll see that the bulk of the information in that article is describing environmental explanations. This article should follow a similar pattern.
The explanations section comes across is if it is trying to make a point and show that Rushton and Jensen have a valid theory. That's NPOV and undue weight.futurebird 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rushton and Jensen are mainstream scientists. (See Snyderman and Rothman (study))Those ten points are the summary of the hereditarian position in general, not just their own views. MoritzB 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here we go again. MoritzB is infamous for his "main-stream" racist ideology. He's been warned about his POV pushing, and he's still at it. FB, you are smart and know how to read sources, so you can be bold and remove that which gives undue weight to these fringe ideologies, and not real science. :) Jeeny (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Snyderman and Rothman among psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, educators, and geneticists (in 1987), 53% thought that the black-white gap was partially genetic and 17% thought that it was entirely environmental. Snyderman and Rothman (study) MoritzB 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Yes, there is a difference between mainstream and famous. I would like to see how many articles specifically pertaining to these so-called mainstream theories were published in journals such as Science. The fact is, although there is always going to be an element of the scientific community that will support both ethically and statistically questionable ideas, the belief that those scientists whom are most popular within such an element are necessarily recognized as being credible by the scientific community as a whole is flawed. By the way, the Cold War was still on in 1987. I don't think that one poll from twenty years ago is really much of a support for your argument. 
131.104.235.213 01:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rushton and Jensen take up too much space in "Explanations" 

message: The consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences between individuals of the same race reflect (1) real, (2) functionally/socially significant, and (3) substantial differences in the general intelligence factor.Gene may affect IQ in males, scientists say Dallas Daily NewsParents pass on genes for reasoning and memory NewScientist.comA World of Difference: Richard Lynn Maps World Intelligence Gene ExpressionMicrocephalin, a Gene Regulating Brain Size, Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans Gene Expressions
This sentences is misleading because it makes it seem like all of those footnotes are in some way supporting Rushton and Jensen's idea about race and intelligence. This sentence is about genetics and intelligence not race... as are the sources that support it. Can we remove some of the sources from this sentence so there are only the two best ones? When I see this many footnotes I assume someone has an ax to grind... also it looks a little silly. futurebird 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The sources should stay. The sentence is not ambiguous. MoritzB 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No the sources should not stay. Moritz haven't you learned anything yet? Jeeny (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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