Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 23

message: I intend to add some remarks to the Bell Chart and the Gap Chart, including the suggestion from Rikurzhen 07:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After making the aforementioned edits, I have decided not to move the warning message since the edits appear to make the article more constructive and potentially worth reading, especially as additional positive conributions appear. Also, I am not sure whether the message has its current location because that is a Wikipedia convention. Elliott Small 17:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading Presentations

message: I just revert the edits made by Nectar. Rikurzhen and I went back and forth on this to reach a consensus on how to prevent the misperception that there is a limit to maximum IQ for any racial or ethnic group. Without this revision, this article is slants toward irrationally denigrating some groups. Elliott Small 05:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. People know what "average" means. 2. The article defines average anyway twice in the intro: once in the main text and once in the image caption. 3. There is no reason to repeatedly define "average" every  time scores are brought up.  Jahiegel makes some related comments here.--Nectar 05:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jahiegel's analysis of my edits are basically apt as is Nectar comments about averages. I'll have to think some more about whether there's any merit to or grounds for talking about upper limits and ranges. For what it's worth, I did a quick simulation and found that on average you can expect that the brightest White person will score about 10 (or more) points higher than the brightest Black person given a very simple model. --Rikurzhen 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of disputes on Wikipedia can be resolved through discussion. Reverting again would seem to just initiate an edit war. (Keep in mind WP:3RR.)--Nectar
I am aware of those rules. Please remember that Rikurzhen and I made those edits after discussion. Then you were the one who came along and reverted the edits without constructive revision. Anyway, in the interest of discussion, please see my reply to Arbor below and let me know why you think that you can continue to revert those edits on your own even though they are the work of two editors. I look forward to reaching a consensus. I know that you have all worked long and hard on this page before I saw it and reacted with my initial alarm. As the page develops, it might actually be appreciated as a tool for constructive understanding. I appreciate the willingness of this group of editors to be unafraid of facts. We just have to be sure that the facts are as complete as is possible. Elliott Small 05:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are getting at, Elliot. The fact that the brightest Blacks significantly outperform the majority of Whites is obvious, and I cannot see how the article tries to be misleading about that—in fact, the introductory graph shows that very well. But you seem to want to say something different, about maximally obtainable IQs. I don't think anybody knows anything about that, so you should be very careful about what you write. In any case, you cannot simply fabricate claims about how populations are distributed at the far ends of the tails. If you can find data, please ignore my reservations and go ahead—that would be very interesting. Arbor 09:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I will explain further. The bell curve and the graph chart give the impression that there is a maximum IQ for each group represented. We all know that that is not what is intended by the charts. However, we cannot expect every reader to have the time to ponder the charts like a statistician. We need new charts or additional charts that reflect the fact that every group can potentially generate the full range of scores from idiot to genius. We do not want Wikipedia to appear to lie by omission. Until we have such charts, the current charts should be explained. For example, many years ago, an organization ranked American colleges and named University of California at Berkeley number one and Harvard number two. The rankings were based on 5 areas. Berkeley was number two in all five. Harvard was number one in four but very low in engineering. If that organization had simply stated that Berkeley was number one without providing that complete information on ranges, the results would have been misleading. This is not a precise analogy, but I believe that it makes the point. Regarding claims, I did say that I intend to add a formal section on ranges. Formal implies structured. That means I will be collecting data. In the meantime, I thought that Rikurzhen and I had already reached a consensus on semantics that do not make "claims," until Nectar reverted our edits without constructive revision. Again, I do appreciate your desire to get this done right. Thanks again for your time and attention. Elliott Small 05:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted to Edits by Rikurzhen and Elliott Small to Avoid Misleading Presentation

message: I think we might be able to improve the efficiency of this page in the long term by including links to archived discussions that may be likely to recur. (along the lines of the above #FAQ:_article_name_change)--Nectar 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page FAQ

message: Since one person's definition may not jibe with the next person's definition of intelligence, no one knows exactly what amounts to intelligence.  Religion is in the same state of unknown flux as is "intelligence." Wars have been fought and are being fought over religion.  Race and intelligence may be the dumbest article in the Wikipedia because there are 1000s of different assessments of "intelligence."  People are not writing about one thing in this article.  It is like discussing Catholicism, Hinduism, Islamism, Buddhism, Protestantism, Shamanism, and other beliefs, all together as being one thing when they are actually all different things.  People ought to find some other topics to discuss or contribute to other than Race and intelligence.  Superslum 15:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article uses the commonly used scientific definition of intelligence.--Nectar 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumbest article

message: from article: The groups have virtually equal ranges of scores. Every group has many individuals who score at both genius levels and retarded levels.
We know that their distributions are overlapping, but I don't know of any reports about ranges. "Range" can have two definitions, and I assume what's meant is a particular span of scores from lowest to highest. Because extremely high IQ individuals may exist without being detected, I imagine it's very difficult to know what the true range is.
The words "genius" and "retarded" are, AFAIK, generally not used. "Highest" and "lowest" could be substituted. --Rikurzhen 00:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: on the IQ tests given to nationally representative samples, the highest score anyone could get would come from getting all the questions correct. i'm not sure if there are any large studies done with tests suited for high scorers. --Rikurzhen 04:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Rikurzhen to be correct with respect to the lack of precision in the terms of genius and retarded, and I think highest and lowest to be superior; I reverted Elliott's change, though (in ignorance, I should say, of this discussion), inasmuch as the edit summary evinced a different purpose, viz., removing an appellative with negative/pejorative connotations.  Such reversion was correct inasmuch as Wikipedia is not censored; though, where meaning is equivalent, we'd always prefer to use a less divisive term (the gratuitous use of offensive terms, though only by guideline), here the term retarded appears to be the appropriate technical term (see, e.g., retarded, and thence the DSM-IV and ISM-10 IQ range enumerations, in which retarded is used) and so it should be used, notwithstanding any potential offense.  In view of the other objections essayed by Rikurzhen and Elliott, though, I would think it altogether fine that we should remove, from the instant sentence, both genius and retarded; I'll not make such change myself, though, because I can't think of an acceptable formulation other than highest and lowest, and I imagine there must be something better (but perhaps there is not).  Joe 04:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Rikurzhen is the one who collected the data. His user page says he's on a wiki break for a couple days.--Nectar 06:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dropped by. As I pointed out above, there's an a priori reason to doubt that the true range has been determined. Tests deployed widely enough would likely be those that are normalized for a representative population, and thus would not be able to distinguish between very high scorers. The SAT and the AFQT are probably some of most widely administered tests that will tell us about the Black-White gap, where you have 10k-100k people taking it each year. Surely there are a number of Americans of every ethnic group that get a perfect SAT of AFQT score, but that probably doesn't distinguish the highest IQs. However, Nectar's point about thinking more broadly than the four US groups is probably the real deal breaker on discussing ranges. Making a number of simplifying assumptions, the AUS Aborigine 96th percentile for IQ is the American Jewish 4th percentile. Almost certainly these groups have different ranges. --Rikurzhen 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One way of verifying whether or not different ranges exist would be to look at the accomplishments of members of any given racial group. Nobel prize winners might be an excellent group to look at, and there have also been systematic attempts made to evaluate the IQs of the most brilliant men and woman to have ever lived. Perhaps a check for mathematicians, physicists, or other high-achievers would be a good way of falsifying or at least throwing doubt on the "different ranges hypothesis" by demonstrating that low-average-IQ populations do have members above a certain threshold. (However, this is probably more of a scientific than encyclopedic exercise, and it might be difficult to agree on a methodology which would be acceptible to most scientists.) Harkenbane 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ranges 

message: *"While the distributions of IQ scores among different racial-ethnic groups overlap, being virtually equal in range from genius to retarded..."
If taking other groups into account, this statement should probably be less strong. The ranges of Australian Aborigines (IQ estimated from 29 studies to be 62 ) and Ashkenazi Jews (107-115) are likely significantly different.--Nectar 02:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rikurzhen is the one who collected the data. His user page says he's on a wiki break for a couple days.--Nectar 06:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dropped by. As I pointed out above, there's an a priori reason to doubt that the true range has been determined. Tests deployed widely enough would likely be those that are normalized for a representative population, and thus would not be able to distinguish between very high scorers. The SAT and the AFQT are probably some of most widely administered tests that will tell us about the Black-White gap, where you have 10k-100k people taking it each year. Surely there are a number of Americans of every ethnic group that get a perfect SAT of AFQT score, but that probably doesn't distinguish the highest IQs. However, Nectar's point about thinking more broadly than the four US groups is probably the real deal breaker on discussing ranges. Making a number of simplifying assumptions, the AUS Aborigine 96th percentile for IQ is the American Jewish 4th percentile. Almost certainly these groups have different ranges. --Rikurzhen 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One way of verifying whether or not different ranges exist would be to look at the accomplishments of members of any given racial group. Nobel prize winners might be an excellent group to look at, and there have also been systematic attempts made to evaluate the IQs of the most brilliant men and woman to have ever lived. Perhaps a check for mathematicians, physicists, or other high-achievers would be a good way of falsifying or at least throwing doubt on the "different ranges hypothesis" by demonstrating that low-average-IQ populations do have members above a certain threshold. (However, this is probably more of a scientific than encyclopedic exercise, and it might be difficult to agree on a methodology which would be acceptible to most scientists.) Harkenbane 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ranges2

message: I removed the "bell curve" picture from the top of the article because errors  (not only statistical) are not evidenced and the source article is not available for all on the Web.
- In my opinion, without a computational model of the human mind is impossible to analyze such its serious and, maybe, most complex multi-attribute property as intelligence. This modeling is the current objective of intensive research in Artificial intelligence and in the systemic cognitive science, from MIT and DARPA to quasi all interdysciplinary academic and research centers. IQ tests constituted an important but the past step in this direction. At present, they are useful in neuropsychological diagnoses of mentally retarded persons but this domain is also the field of numerous pseudo- and para- scientific activities.
See Google: 88.900.000 docs on intelligence, modeling, research.
- Wikipedia is very well visible on the Web, therefore a high social responsability and mental maturity of the editors is expected. Absolute neutrality does not exist,  but we may expect such their actions which are based on the Hippocrates medical rule: Primum non nocere ("first, do no harm").
- On the other hand the number of references to this article is excessive and many of them are not available for typical Wikiperdia users (?).
- I inserted the the following  text:
From the recent research perspective based rigorously on the scientific paradigms/(scientific method), the application of various IQ tests to the intelligence study is seen by many scientists as a pseudoscientific activity, where not commonly accepted and ill definied model of intelligence leads to the results which can be used for different social and political manipulations. Intelligence is a very complex multi-attribute property of human brains dependent on numerous weakly measured/observed socio-cultural factors and individual experiences.  Therefore some bellow presented results and opinions do not have clear scientific value related to the subject matter but are evidenced because this kind of research is a part of the human culture history and has strong individual and social emotional component. For example, similar studies dealing with "profession and intelligence" do not exist, see Google search but the relation race-intelligence (Google)is also widely discussed in the other Wikipedia sub-article: race and intelligence (average gaps among races).
and I hope that these lines or something similar, remain at the begining of this article.
(white) --192.107.77.3 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're interested in reasonable discussion, the reason for reverting that edit is that it doesn't accurately represent the literature in this area.  The default stance is that drastic changes to a section that's been edited by many editors over the past year would require prior discussion.--Nectar 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific approach 

message: Intelligence is what you use when you don't know what to do. -- Jean Piaget
unfortunately ... people usually think they know what to do and ... they do it.  -- G.Ridman 
Dear Haukurth - see your User talk page.
and Rikurzhen - I see that you are too emotionally engaged in this page - this is not your private property - but in such cases usually rational arguments are not useful. - sorry - You have beautiful picture on your User page - my congratulation.
--192.107.77.3 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're interested in reasonable discussion, the reason for reverting that edit is that it doesn't accurately represent the literature in this area.  The default stance is that drastic changes to a section that's been edited by many editors over the past year would require prior discussion.--Nectar 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last comment  to the reverted pages: 17:09, 8 June 2006 Rikurzhen  & 18:32, 8 June 2006 Haukurth m (sp.

message: *POV: Removed
"Scientist in their publications give operational definitions to the groups that they study and describe how the samples are drawn. The populations used may vary according to the purpose of the study, and there is no universally agreed upon subdivision of the races of man. For example, the very large collaboration of geneticists known as the HapMap project, which used four populations for its first extensive database of SNPs, studied not "Mongoloids" but rather Japanese from Tokyo and Han Chinese. Other parallel studies are examining other racial divisions than the four frequently mentioned groups, and there is no supposition that there is an exhaustive, unique list of the races of man. In most studies of intelligence, race and ethnicity are used interchangably, and individuals are categorized by self-identification."Ultramarine 12:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (done) 

message: * Dubious "In a 1987 survey of scholars in specialties related to IQ" The scholars were psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, educators, and geneticists. This information has repeatedly been deleted. Stating "scholars in specialties related to IQ" is at least misleading, sociologists and educators may well know nothing about this. It is implied that this is the opinion of the researchers on IQ and this survey is used as a evidence against the APA consensus statement "what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." Ultramarine 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 (done) 

message: *POV: Hidden counter-argument Again, regarding this 1987 survery. Hidden in footnotes in one place or not mentioned at all at the other place "Whether this still applies today is unknown." Ultramarine 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 (done)

message: *Original reserach. Regarding studies arguing against the genetic explanation, this is stated without source: "Hereditarians argue that these studies are flawed, or that they do support the partly-genetic hypothesis." Ultramarine 13:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5

message: *POV: Repeatedly deleted "in Northern Ireland the IQ gap between Protestants and Catholics is as large as that between Blacks and Whites in the US."
** Has anyone seen this written anywhere but on that partisan website? --Rikurzhen 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor Richard Lynn said the Scots average IQ of 97 was well below the England and Wales average of 100.5 and on a par with the Republic of Ireland. London and the south-east of England scored top in the UK, with an average IQ of 102. 
This is even more reason to want to find independent reliable verification of this 15 point gap claim. --Rikurzhen 06:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6

message: *Dubious "Indeed, even proponents of a partly genetic interpretation of the IQ gap, such as Rushton and Jensen (2005a) and Gottfredson (2005b), argue that their interpretation does not in itself demand any particular policy response" They have in other places argued against for example school integration and affirmative action.Ultramarine 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7

message: *Dubious or Npov"race differences are most pronounced on tests that are the best measures of g, which also show the highest heritability (see Spearman's hypothesis)" Very misleading, from the subarticle "Dolan and Hamaker 2001 have reanalyzed the data from several previous studies (Jensen and Reynolds 1982; Naglieri and Jensen 1987) that used the statistical method invented by Jensen (the method of correlated vectors) with a more recent and improved method (multigroup confirmatory factor analysis). Their results statistically were consistent with the weak form of Spearman's hypothesis that black-white group differences were predominantly on the g factor. However, their analysis of the data set failed to "establish Spearman's hypothesis as an empirically established fact". They also speculate that "it is possible that the analysis of all available data sets ... will demonstrate that a model incorporating the weak version of Spearman's hypothesis provides the best description of the data."[8] This leaves the validity of Spearman's hypothesis, considered a central justification for the genetic explanation, an unresolved question." Ultramarine 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9 (Done but note how Rushton and Jensen misrepresent this!) 

message: *Dubious or POV"regression to differing means for different races (No known environmental factor can have this effect)." Even Rushton and Jensen admit that this is possible.Ultramarine 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (No known environmental factor can have this effect) is AFAIK false. It's more like, no environmental theory would have predicted this effect, but only in the sibling regression data, the parent-child regression would be predicted I would think. --Rikurzhen 06:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Ultramarine 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 (done)

message: *POV: RemovedWhen Rushton's claimed supporting references were examined they were found to include a nonscientific semipornographic book and an article in Penthouse Forum. Ultramarine 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that those two non-scientific references agreed with the results of his and others' studies on variation in penis size among ethnicities.  Variation in penis size is not discussed in this article.--Nectar 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Rushton thinks it is related to IQ. Ultramarine 07:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we ever reference the characteristics Rushton surveys that appear in the same order as IQ differences, such as primary and secondary sexual characteristics, we can rely on the hundreds of scientific studies he references, rather than on a penthouse article.  Problem solved?--Nectar 10:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, Rushton's claims have been thoroughly debunked. For example, the latest meta-analysis find no evidence for his claim that blacks are more psychopathic. Ultramarine 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rushton surveyed the studies available on more than 60 characteristics.  The issue is probably more complicated than blanket condemnations. For example: "The World Health Organization bases its specifications for condom width on consumer preference and penis size, citing three studies. Taken together, the studies show significant variations in penis size within all population groups, but also indicate that men of African descent on average have a slightly wider and longer penis size, Caucasian men have a medium size, and Asian men a slightly narrower and shorter size. (WHO)"Family Health International --Nectar 13:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously no one denies that there are physical differences. What is serious is the unscientific methods that Rushton uses, which the above is just one example of. Ultramarine 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As evidence of Rushston's sources it is  revealing. Especially as he is the head of the Pioneer Fund. Personally, I would not trust anything funded from that fund until duplicated by independent researchers.Ultramarine 06:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cernovsky doesn't make this point explicitly (I've never read the original piece by Rushton that includes these references) so I'm not sure it's safe to connect the dots that he doesn't connect for us given what Nectar has indicated here. --Rikurzhen 06:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 14

message: *POV: Removed
The text states: "Some scientists, including W. D. Hamilton, [24] considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century," and a long quote in the footnotes. Exluded is " (and controversial, thought that the origin of the AIDS epidemic lay in oral polio vaccines)," Ultramarine 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamilton's support for the OPV AIDS hypothesis doesn't seem to deserve mention in any summary of his notability that's less than one paragraph long, and it's irrelevant to this topic.--Nectar 07:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV to have a long statement glorifying him and not the opposite view. Ultramarine 07:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamilton is, in fact, a prestigious evolutionary theorist.  If a reference discussing his overbearing controversiality can be provided, we can continue this point.--Nectar 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His theory is certainly controversial and proved false.Ultramarine 06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A scientific theory being wrong doesn't constitute a claim that one of the most prestigious recent evolutionary theorists is "controversial".--Nectar 11:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 15

message: *POV: Arguments selectively hidden in footnotes
"It is well established that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa, and decreases with distance from Africa. One study estimates that only 6.3% of the total human genetic diversity is explained by race." Ultramarine 11:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an argument if everyone agrees on a point. Moreover, those figures are not something that anyone who doesn't already know these facts is capable of interpreting. Unless you're going to append a description of the subtleties of the Fst statistic, then there's no point in describing exactly how much variation exists where -- unless population bottlenecks and demographic history is somehow important to this topic. The actual claims made in plain language are found in the main text as on the basis of that more genetic variation exists within such races than between them and racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries. An Fst of .07-.15 is the genetic counterpart to the observation that most phenotypic variance in single complex traits occurs within familes, not between races -- skin color and a few others being the major exceptions. --Rikurzhen 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moreover, those figures are not something that anyone who doesn't already know these facts is capable of interpreting." Then explain in the article. Let the reader decide for themselves. When someone starts arguing that some information must be hidden, then we are in dangerous territory. Obviously the information that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa has important consequences for sweeping generalizations about IQ in Africa from a few studies in a few locations.Ultramarine 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a virtually infinite collection of facts that can be claimed to be tangetially related to this topic but which are not actually important (e.g. any sentence from race). In a summary style section, the burden is on you to demonstrate that your addition is a "key" fact. I've already annotated the footnote to explain what the numbers mean -- their common sense interpretation is that on average alleles will be in a 70/30 versus 30/70 distribution between two continental-level populations. --Rikurzhen 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, obviously the information that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa has important consequences for sweeping generalizations about IQ in Africa from a few studies in a few locations, or from the US IQ scores.Ultramarine 06:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. When is the average IQ of Africans ever inferred from a "few" studies? For Lynn's latest book, the plurality of studies were of Africans. 2. What makes you think that greater genetic diversity indicates greater phenotypic diversity? Chimps are 2x more genetically diverse than the totality of humans while being obviously less phenotypically diverse. Europeans are in fact more phenotypically diverse for many phenotypes (e.g. hair and eye color). Moreover, the gradient of genetic diversity is not profound. (Of course, there are some isolated populations that are quite homogenous, but most Eurasian populations are not much less diverse than most African populations.) The bulk of genetic diversity has no phenotypic impact. Who has claimed that this is kind of diversity is important for race and IQ? --Rikurzhen 06:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 17

message: #8 and #9 appear to be the points still disputed; do people think we can just remove those two sentences until the points are resolved, rather than label the entire article disputed?--Admissions 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot remove those two sentences, as they are key information. I would repeat again that personal disbelief in this context is not a basis for NPOV objections. As written, the text is accurate and NPOV -- it's written as x is cited by hereditarians as support for the genetic hypothesis, not as x is evidence for the genetic hypothesis. Even if we could demonstrate on the talk page that they were mistaken, we would still have to write what we've written. Unless some has something else to object to, we appear to be done with the tag. --Rikurzhen 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly still dispute all points excepted as stated in them. Ultramarine 00:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've had time to make 200 edits since conversation stopped here.  If you have any reason for the NPOV tag to remain, please bring it up in a timely manner (remember, this article is live). Cheers, Nectar 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that the article-level tag is being overused.  I continue to have some issues with the article, and it tends to creep in the direction of pro-hereditarian and reductionist POV relatively quickly if Ultramarine, me, or a couple others don't object strongly to many such additions.  Nonetheless, slapping an NPOV or fact tag the whole article because of some relatively limited issues goes much too far.  The bulk of the article has remained fairly factual and neutrally POV.  I think using section-pov tags, at most, is much more appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Serious issues remains regarding the whole article as noted above. That the opposing side have written the last word regarding some dispute do not mean I agree. However, I agree that maybe it would be better to have specific tags in each section that describes  exactly what the dispute is about. Ultramarine 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You have had time to correct the errors and pov but have not done so. The disagreement remains. The editors who are pushing this are mainly those who seem to spend all their time editing race related articles from a particular POV. Ultramarine 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: correct the errors and pov -- Oh come now, that's begging the question. I don't think there are errors or POV problems, and it seems that Nectar is generally of the same opinion. It's not just that I think there are POV problems but disagree with your solution, it's that what you call POV issues I think aren't even POV issues. Disagreeing with a published opinion (so long as its attributed and neutrally described) is not a POV problem, it's completely outside the pervue of WP. The other issue seems to be that you would like to see each hereditarian argument indiviudally refuted, which is simply impossible given space constraints; the sub-article where that is done is actually (slightly) bigger than this entire article. Accepting this constract, I am satisfied with seeing the best arguments for culture and the best arguments for genetics written as they are with a single instance of noting the disagreement. Anyone who wants to read the subarticle can, but otherwise they should just get the executive summary. --Rikurzhen 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: When editors on both sides of an issue disagree with a tag, it's the responsibility of the claimant to advance his or her own arguments and thereby convince other editors.  If you're concerned about editors' POVS, ironically (given the disputes that sometimes have occurred), this article has been written entirely by left-of-center editors, with the exception of a couple of editors who periodically have participated on the talk page.--Nectar 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove the disputed tags until the conflict is resolved. The claim that the group of editors trying to remove the arguments against the genetic explanation is "left-of-center" is strange and irrelevant for factual accuracy. Also, do you know each other in real life so you can make this statement? Looking at your edits, you seems to edit mostly race related articles from a particular POV.Ultramarine 11:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your understanding of these matters remains unique, and other editors seem to disagree. Maybe we can find some common ground with a The factual accuracy and neutrality of this page is disputed by User:Ultramarine and link to a separate subpage that presents your viewpoints. Clearly, the current modus operandi has come to an impasse. Without involving external arbitration (which does not seem to match the style of the current editors) I cannot see how your "disputed" tags improve the situation. Other suggestions are welcome, of course. Arbor 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss the issues noted above. Ultramarine 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the above comment's not worth responding to, but I will say as a supporter of science you should be glad there are users representing the positions held by scientists in the so-called "realist" camp (e.g. Pinker, Hamilton, Ernst Mayr), even if you disagree with those positions.  Nobody wants Wikipedia to only represent one side of science. Beyond that, note that the disputed tag is in the same place it's been since the dispute started (above the table of contents).--Nectar 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a little less glad when said supporters of the so-called "realist" camp act as though they own the article. Several points have been raised questioning aspects of this research (the meaning of "g" as a single-number measurement, its relation to what is called intelligence in layman's terms, the representativity of the "world-wide IQ samples" used in most of the research, the very meaning and appropriateness from the viewpoint of genetics of the racial tags as they've been historically defined). These are all valid and are still hotly debated in the world of science. To say otherwise because of one or a few studies doesn't represent reality. The AAA refutes the very meaning of races as we've historically known them . The APA, in its consensus statement on the Bell Curve said about the Black-White IQ difference: There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. These are the facts. For these reasons, the neutrality of this article, in trying to positively substantiate a genetic cause to a measured difference in IQ numbers between racial groups remains very much in question. --Ramdrake 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But, Ramdrake, all these points are acknowledged in the article. There is certainly more room devoted to non-hereditary positions (relative to their exposure in the scientific literature) than vice versa; the article "errs on the side" of Sternberg and others (while being very clear about labelling their position as a minority POV—as it should).  In any case, almost every POV here is expressed as "X says Y, but Z says !Y" instead of "Y is the truth" or just "Y" (which is what Evolution does, and gets away with it.) So the R&I presentation is the very definition of NPOV. It certainly makes no attempt to hide any controversies—on the contrary, we have whole sections and subarticles devoted to presenting just these controversies. Arbor 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbor, I am quite sure this is how you honestly see the article. I get another feel when I read the article; that's my honest opinion. You feel the article is balanced as it presents both sides equally. I feel the argument is unbalanced as I don't think the genetic side deserves as much exposure, as I think there are enough flaws with Lynn's research to make it borderline pseudoscience (this is my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and you have every right to disagree with it), and as it is central to this article, the rest logically follows. If one could devise a warning on this article which says both that it is controversial in subject and that its neutrality can also be controversial depending on one's viewpoint, I would support it. I don't know if you think that would be an improvement. --Ramdrake 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:NPOV, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". A concise description of what NPOV means is found at WP:NPoV#The_neutral_point_of_view. It describes this article precisely. There's probably always room for tweaking the language to squeeze every last bit of individual bias out of the writing, but that's not what you've suggested Ramdrake. What you've suggested is presenting one side of the controversy in less than their best light because you think they're wrong and the other side is right. That, of coures, isn't permissible. --Rikurzhen 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tag

message: Upon review, the 17 points raised in this NPOV dispute appear to have, whether through discussion or altering the article, progressed to the point of not requiring a tag. Editors on both sides have weighed in, expressing that they consider the tag to be unnecessary in relation to the points raised. If any editors have an argument otherwise, please bring it up.--Nectar 06:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I still don't agree yet. --Ramdrake 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before this degenerates into a straw poll: This is not a vote. Nectarflowed is soliciting arguments. Arbor 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I need to expound: I still think the article is slanted towards the concept that there is no serious opposition to the genetic viewpoint, whereas the opposition is there, both from the science and from the lay crowds. It gives the impression that the arguments presented herein have no serious rebuttal. Irrespective of who's right, there is still a very heated controversy over this endeavor, and my impression is that this article doesn't let that transpire. Therefore, I would argue that this article is still not "neutral". I'm working on a small section that I hope will help, though. I just would like us to avoid putting the cart in front of the oxen. --Ramdrake 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're correct that the article does not portray the arguments against a genetic cause neutrally, then that's a serious problem. While you're thinking about this, try to distinguish between the topic of whether a meaningful difference exists and the question of what causes the difference. For example, James Flynn and Arthur Jensen agree on all the data and disagree on how to interpret it. For most questions, they would give the same answer except those relating to cause. I happen to think that Flynn's POV is presented well. --Rikurzhen 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to refer you to the last comment made by Jokestress a couple days ago here. It's just that I feel the same. --Ramdrake 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not good enough. As editors, our only mission is to select among and present published viewpoints. Not yours. And not Jokestress'. I myself have several private opinions about much of this, but I have never lobbied for their inclusion (nor even taken them up on the talk page) — simply have no place on this page: no-one else of significance who has voiced them. So my own POV—brilliant and deep and convincing as I think it is—is underrepresented. That does not make this article !NPOV. Arbor 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that I need to find a published viewpoint that states this article lacks a certain degree of neutrality in its presentation? I don't think that's what you meant to say. This all started when Nectar said that all editors have expressed the view that the tag is now unnecessary. I expressed my view that it is still necessary. When told that just expressing my view was not enough, I explained the reasons for my stance. When told that I should reconsider my view, I brought forth the point that others on this page have expressed just the same opinion (i.e. not all editors think the tag is now unnecessary). Now, I'm being told that pointing to opinions similar to mine on this page is not good enough, that I need to present a published viewpoint. I will reiterate this: I do not support the removal of this tag at this point, and from reading this talk page, I can conclude that one if not several other editors feel the same. I do not think there is consensus to remove yet. --Ramdrake 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I wasn't clear, perhaps. You need to be more concrete. For example, you need to point to a specific (published) POV that is under- or overrepresented. And you cannot point to Jokestress' POV. You can point to Flynn's, or Sternberg's, or Gould's. You correctly point out that Nectar should not have said "All editors think the tag is unnecessary." He should have said "No editor has been able to produce a reason for keeping the tag that a significant number of other editors agree with." Arbor 06:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, "all editors" would be a misreading of my comment. .. Most discussions on Wikipedia don't require tagging the article as being unreliable.. and that's something that Lulu (who has played a significant role on the critical side of this article) seems to agree on.--Nectar 13:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: using Arbor's material, and some of my own, I am writing a bit about "R&I research as pseudoscience". I've been at it for a bit less than a week now, and I expect to be done in no more than a week. The way I see it, once this part is in place, it should go a good length towards redressing what I find is the problem with neutrality. Just please leave the tag one more week, I'll take the onus of addressing the reason why I feel the tag is presently there. When I come up with the section, I will withdraw my objection to removing the tag. If I can't come up with the section in due time, you can still remove the tag as far as I'm concerned. Considering the tag's been up there for a couple of months now, I don't think one more week will kill anyone. What say you? --Ramdrake 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds great. Used like that, the NPOV tag is actually doing something constructive. Arbor 10:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless you have something new to say about #2, that thread appears to be finished. --Rikurzhen 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tag2

message: Reach a suitable consensus first before engaging in edit warring, please, all of you. NSLE (T+C) at 17:38 UTC (2006-06-09)
:Please restore the >1 month old consensus version before protecting. --Rikurzhen 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What consensus? What happened to the totally disputed tag?Ultramarine 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We continued discussing it in your long absense and agreed that the article was NPOV and accurate. One editor made plans to expand the controversy section, but hasn't followed thru on that. --Rikurzhen 17:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Haukurth's change is perfectly[;)] fine with me. --Rikurzhen 20:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't consider it perfectly fine (it is, as he himself noted, a bit clumsy), it seems like a fair compromise. I'm for it. --Ashenai 20:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a very good point. I think the disclaimer is sufficent, but if someone can find a good-looking figure to replace the SAT data that would be fine as well. In reality, all kinds of less than perfect tests are used to measure intelligence and make conclusions about race. For example, Nisbett (2005) treats the NAEP as an IQ test, which it plainly is not (probably r=.5-.6 with IQ tests ). --Rikurzhen 20:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use IQ scores if there is peer-reviewed study that has used them and produced similar results as claimed. Why use inferior and possibly biased data? Ultramarine 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is an actual study that shows that the gap disappers with appropriate controls. Why is this not used instead of the homemade arguments using SAT scores? Ultramarine 21:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UL, your suggestions is not a compromise, it's is an evasion of my arguments. You should not have simply reverted the compromise changes. Unforuntely, Fryer and Levitt's work has been highly controversial. It does not substitute for the long standing conclusions addressed in the APA report. --Rikurzhen 23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you who evade the arguments. You have still not cited any peer-reviewed article for your source. The APA discusses IQ, not SAT scores. This article  shows that the gap disappears when controlling for a small number of factors. Since this is a peer-reviewed study, why not use it instead? Ultramarine 23:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haukurth's change 

message: the follow up study by fryer and levitt here fails to confirm the patterns observed in their first paper:
The racial achievement gap remains a stubborn reality. Using newly collected data on a
recent cohort from the ECLS, we document substantial Black-White test score gaps in both math
and reading that grow at approximately .10 standard deviations per year that children are in
school. The divergence in test scores relative to Whites is not apparent for either Hispanics or
Asians.
The explanation as to why Blacks are losing ground proves elusive. Fryer and Levitt
(2004) test a wide range of hypotheses, finding some empirical support for only one explanation:
differential school quality across races. When the data are extended to cover an additional two
years of schooling, however, the support for even this hypothesis weakens. We also explore
whether the growing racial test score gap could be attributed to the inherent difficulties in testing
achievement at especially young ages, or the possibility of increasing importance of home inputs
for the development of higher-order thinking, but can provide no compelling evidence
confirming these hypotheses either.
testing intelligence in young children is an important but difficult issue. most of the data discussed in the WP article focuses on adults where IQ has become largely "fixed". however, important causal inferences may be made from studies of children. someone might want to follow up on the issue of the age trajectory of the B-W gap. --Rikurzhen 00:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They also state: "The divergence in test scores relative to Whites is not apparent for either Hispanics or Asians." This follow-up do not deny that the gap can initially be explained by a small number of non-genetic factors. Also, note the importance of publishing the results in peer-reviewed papers. I suggest that you try to publish your research on SAT and racial differences in IQ in a peer-reviewed paper. Wikipedia is not the place.Ultramarine 00:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You realize that the test Fryer and Levitt are reporting on is a test of math and reading, right? Want to wager a guess at the correlation between the scores on a Kindergarden or First grade math test and the g-score from an IQ test? There are papers on the B-W IQ gap in children. I don't have them at hand, but review articles say the gap is ~1 sd from age 2. I addressed your claims about the SAT in the sections above. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted, their study is very large and recent. As they note, their results are different from earlier studies, possibly indicating that gap is closing. IQ correlates very highly with early school grades, so I find it at least equal in value to using SAT scores.Ultramarine 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That the achievement gap has narrowed is the consensus view. See the NAEP graphs on that page. It was narrowed considerably by 1990. --Rikurzhen 00:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fryer and levitt 

message: in the SES/IQ figure caption, i originally wrote These kinds of findings have led to the conclusion that simple differences in socio-economic status cannot explain the IQ gap (reviewed in )
this has been changed to These kinds of findings suggest that simple differences in socio-economic status cannot explain all of the IQ gap (reviewed in Neisser et al. 1996).
I'm not sure that this change is appropriate. Here is the relevant text from the APA report:
# the Black/White differential in test scores is not eliminated when groups or individuals are matched for SES (Loehlin et al, 1975)
# excluding extreme conditions, nutrition and other biological factors that may vary with SES account for relatively little of the variance in such scores
# The living conditions of children result in part from the accomplishments of their parents: if the skills measured by psychometric tests actually matter for those accomplishments. intelligence is affecting SES rather than the other way around
# it is clear that no model in which 'SES" directly determines "IQ" will do
# To imagine that any simple income- and education-based index can adequately describe the situation of African Americans is to ignore important categories of experience
# The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites ... does not ... simply reflect differences in socio-economic status.
I know of no reports which argue against these generalization. Moreover, the observation that SES accounts for very little of the BW gap is a key motivation to the theories of Ogbu (e.g. his book on Shaker Heights, OH) and Flynn, as well as Rushton and Jensen. It is a primary impetus for a great deal of the very complicated argument found in that section. --Rikurzhen 18:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The APA report is twenty years old. Here is a more recent study Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children Ultramarine 19:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking about young children, whereas these conclusions are about people >=17 years old. --Rikurzhen 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, they mention children in your citation. Also, they do not state that SES has no role at all, only that it is not the only explanation.Ultramarine 19:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it shrinks in magnitude due to the IQ-SES correlation, which is .33. they discuss children, but children is a broader category than young children. young children show a relatively low IQ heritability in any SES group. --Rikurzhen 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: there are many things about young children that aren't true for older children and adults. what text in the paper you linked to argues that SES accounts for the BW gap? --Rikurzhen 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another article mentioning the first article. Again, the twenty years old APA report does not state that SES has no role at all, only that it is not the only explanation.Ultramarine 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  simple SES differences 

message: I haven't forgot about it. The data was first published in: College Board, The. (1995). 1995 profile of SAT and achievement test takers. New York. AFAIK, this was the last year they broke out the statistics by race * SES. --Rikurzhen 00:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to make a point? What? Ultramarine 00:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've claimed, erroneous, at several times that the 1995 SAT data is some-how made up. I explained the source of the data, but you persisted. Above is the very first publication of the data. --Rikurzhen 00:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never claimed you invented the data. Your original research is that they combined with SES are relevent to IQ and race.Ultramarine 00:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't think that SAT scores stratified by race are relevant to IQ and race? Or just when they take SES into account also? --Rikurzhen 00:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your theory. I suggest you try to publish it in a journal outside Wikipedia.Ultramarine 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is my theory? [emphasis added] --Rikurzhen 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. You are doing an original synthesis of many variables, something not allowed. Do not try to publish your personal theory here. Do it in a real peer-reviewed journal.Ultramarine 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you answer my question? --Rikurzhen 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your questions miss the point. Regardless of if there has been some research on the associations of some these variables, it is still new research to do new combinations of them. Your are making an original combination of variables and claiming an original result. That is original research. Ultramarine 01:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have agreed that the data (i.e. the SAT*SES*race graph) is itself not original. You seem to be claiming that merely the idea that an SAT*SES*race graph would be worth mentioning in an article about "race and intelligence" is an original contribution. Clearly, it is so obviously salient that it's already been done at least once before. Graphs of the form IQ*SES*race have been pushised in discussions of R&I, etc. --Rikurzhen 06:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what peer-reviewed article has used these SAT and SES data to argue about race and IQ? Ultramarine 10:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ultramarine: Rik's justification is more than enough to warrant inclusion of the graph. It is clearly a honest, relevant, non-original, and unbiased presentation of a significant POV in this debate. Please try to present your arguments as cogent syllogisms instead of rhetorical questions, pointers, quotations, and appeals to your own version of WP policies. Especially, stop insisting on the use of peer-reviewed articles as the only valid source for Wikipedia content. Your understanding of WP policies in this matter remains unique, and the small set of articles that you have chosen to lavish your attention on may not be the best platform for your programme. Arbor 11:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the place for homemade research. Again, what peer-reviewed article has used these SAT and SES data to argue about race and IQ? Ultramarine 12:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1995 SAT data 

message: Please stop deleting opposing view. NPOV requires inclusion of all, not just those of one side.
*A. From a peer-reviewed journal. Nisbett states that the IQ gap is today 0.6-0.7 SD, much lower than in the graphs.
*B. Murray gives several different results. They are based on his unpublished research and thus not of much value.
*C. Even, so one of his results show a SD of 0.78 SD.
*D. Murray uses achievement tests, just as Nisbett. There are no recent peer-reviewed nationwide IQ tests available.
*E. Roth (2001) uses a variety of tests, mostly achievement as Murray points out. There are no recent peer-reviewed nationwide IQ tests available. Also, "In many instances, standardized group differences are less than 1 standard deviation."
*F. Roth (2003) in a new  new meta-analysis: "For Black–White comparisons, the overall results show a standardized ethnic group difference for job performance ratings of approximately one third of a standard deviation"  Ultramarine 23:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nisbett's review/article is nice but it's principally concerned with criticing the hereditist position, we probably shouldn't rely heavily on it for other things than its main focus. As for the 0.6-0.7 and 0.78 std. numbers it seems to me (as a rank amateur, though a somewhat scientifically literate one) that they're not really that inconsistent with a gap of "about 1 std." and considering the high stability of IQ scores for adult individuals it seems that swift reductions in the IQ gap are not to be expected. Even the optimistic Nisbett thinks it would take "between 20 and 60 years" for the gap to be eliminated, that shows fairly clearly that a study isn't obsolete even if it's a few years old. Also note that the article treats the subject in a historical light and the graphs don't necessarily have to show the best estimate of the current gap as long as the age of the data is clearly stated. Imagine when we'll be sitting here in 40 years discussing the article and, assuming Nisbett proves correct, the IQ gap is gone. Historical graphs showing the IQ gap as it existed in, say, the 1980's, would still be of interest to readers fascinated by this barbaric time. Haukur 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The graphs show data that is 25 years old. An increase in IQ of 5 points fits well with the Flynn effect. Anyhow, we at wikipedia should not decide which researcher is right. NPOV requires that all significant views should be included. Nisbett and the many tests he reports is a significant view. As such, it violates NPOV to exclude it and instead include 25 years old data.Ultramarine 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not treating it as consensus view. It is a view that is excluded from the main text, violating NPOV. The 25 years old data is described as the current situation. It should be clearly pointed out that some argue that the gap is much smaller today. However, we can keep the graphs with such a clear disclaimer. That is, until Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: evidence from standardization samples by Flynn and Dickens, currently in press, is published.Ultramarine 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until??? What are the chances that a paper with such a title will be published without an accompanying commentary? Fortunately for us, the Reynolds data already showed only a 1 sd BW gap. --Rikurzhen 04:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I'm asking a question which betrays my ignorance, but doesn't a narrowing of the IQ gap, at just about any rate, strongly point to SES (or other environmental factors) as the cause for the gap, and away from a hereditary explanation? Just asking... --Ramdrake 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. That is why Rushton and the other Pioneer fund grantees so strongly deny it.Ultramarine 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ramdrake, as you stated it, it does not. It depends entirely on the magnitude of the reduction. If the BW gap were to disappear, then it would become highly likely that there was no genetic effect. However, no one thinks the BW gap is 100% due to genes. Rushton and Jensen guessed a 1-1.2 sd gap @ 80% heredity. Under their model, a reduction to .8-.96 would be expected if environmental conditions were improved. As an aside, I find it noteworthy that Murray's review found a range of .78-1 sd among recent IQ tests. --Rikurzhen 04:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and the IQ gap 

message: "Ashkenazi Jews, for example, demonstrate verbal and mathematical scores more than one standard deviation above average, but visuospatial scores roughly one half standard deviation lower than the White average..."
This suggests that Jewish IQ means are well-established. Actually, though, they are estimated from small, unrepresentative studies. While almost every study shows this pattern of abilities, exact values differ considerably from study to study. Thus I have changed this:
"Ashkenazi Jews, for example, demonstrate high verbal and mathematical scores, but average or below average visuospatial scores..."
Bulldog123 20:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish IQ 

message: *"The curves extend across the entire X-axis (from <55 to >145) for all groups and do not indicate a maximum or minimum IQ for any group."
These tails clearly taper off, indicating descreasing frequency, rather than indicating a "maximum" or "minimum". Including every pet comment someone has makes the article unreadable. If any other editors disagree, can you weigh in?--Nectar 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tails aren't very clear - perhaps maybe we could create a new graph that made the asymptotic relationship more obvious, and lose the wording? Is there a source for the data used to create the graph? --JereKrischel 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That might be a good idea. Until then, explaining that there are intelligent people from all minorities is not a "pet comment". Obviously this is important to point out.Ultramarine 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are very few people at +/- 3 SD. That's a limiting factor. But no one thought it was a problem for a long time until someone else chimed in with that misunderstanding. --Rikurzhen 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bell curves

message: Since many people read articles my reading the introduction and then only the image captions, maybe we need some sexy graphs for environmental explanations. I suggest we include Bell curves for the Flynn effect, following Neisser 1997. See , look for figure 59, for what I have in mind. I would like the upper graph (with the intersection Bell curves) rendered in the same style that we render the Race vs. IQ Bell chart in the introduction, with a brief caption, maybe like this: Environmental effects: If children from 1997 were to take a 1932 IQ test, their average would be around 120. Since the genetic markup of these two populations is largely unchanged, the difference between these populations must due to environmental causes. This phenomenon is known as the Flynn effect, and its causes are very little understood. It is possible that the same unknown environmental effects that could explain the Flynn effect also explain racial differences in IQ. Or something like that. This would get an important example of non-genetic reasoning across quickly, and give the article some graphical consistency as well. And it's much more attractive than a picture of Flynn. Arbor 20:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images for environmental explanations

message: moved from main text:
:A recent theory hypothesizes that fluid cognition (gF') may be separable from general intelligence, and that gF' may be very susceptible to environmental factors, in particular early childhood stress. Some IQ tests, especially those used with children, are poor measures of gF', which means that the effect of the environment on intelligence regarding racial differences, the Flynn effect, early childhood intervention, and life outcomes may have been underestimated in many studies. 
It is accompanied by a dozen (more or less?) responses. the relation of his theory to the BW gap doesn't appear to have been discussed, but assertions about Gf, about the ability to measure Gf, etc are all discussed. Prima facie these commentaries have questioned most of the assertions made in the text I copied above. We should tread carefully in describing this new paper; definitely read the commentaries before putting this material back. --Rikurzhen 02:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't get it online, busy at the mo', but will read + commentaries soonish and get back to you.  Normally wouldn't accept the existence of opposing views as acceptable reasons not to include a scientific view, but BBS have deliberately controversial articles with open responses. --Coroebus 22:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to be able to describe both Blair's view and any reported problems with it. There are so many commentaries that I don't have the time to go thru them all. Blair's responses to critics would be a place to start. There's also the issue of importance. The Flynn effect is important; I'm not sure that Blair's theory rises to front page importance on this topic, but maybe it should be described in the articles more directly related to his thesis. --Rikurzhen 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clancy blair's paper finally published 

message: There's a line in there from Lynn:
Lying about race differences in achievement is harmful because it foments mutual recrimination. Because the untruth insists that differences cannot be natural, they must be artificial, manmade, manufactured. Someone must be at fault. Someone must be refusing to do the right thing. It therefore sustains unwarranted, divisive, and ever-escalating mutual accusations of moral culpability, such as Whites are racist and Blacks are lazy.
If we can assert that there are biogeographic distributions of intelligence, why not assert biogeographic distributions of racism, or laziness, or any other brain-based function?  Boy, wouldn't it be funny if a study was done that correlated slave owning societies and discriminatory societies and found that there was a 1-2-3 stepwise ladder with Whites being the most racist, and White scientists being most prone to misinterpret data? :) --JereKrischel 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (The quote isn't from Lynn.)--Nectar 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's Linda Gottfredson (Lynn...Linda...jumbled them up for a sec).  Still, can you imagine the uproar if a series of studies indicated that white scientists are more likely to misinterpret data and be racist than black or east asian scientists? :) --JereKrischel 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's probably more humorous stuff than we might sometimes expect.--Nectar 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total red herring, but it made me think