Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 24

message: Can these references be implemented properly, consistent with the referencing style applied for the rest of the article (AYref)?--Nectar 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain that?  I've never used AYref before...I'd love to learn a new template! --JereKrischel 08:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the system was something Arbor put together (IIRC) to deal with the massive amount of referencing being generated for this article. I think it can be seen how it works (it's pretty simple) by looking at the tag in the article ( {AYref|name|date} ) and looking at the corresponding tag of the reference it links to at the references page.--Nectar 08:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should. I've been reading through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for things to improve. --Rikurzhen 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference consistency 

message: Culture-only explanations excludes some scientists who emphasize cultural explanations but don't necessarily exclude some genetic influence.  Around the time Lulu and others were considering these changes, we added: "Reynolds (2000) suggests up to 20% genetic influence be included in the cultural explanation."  The 28% in the Snyderman and Rothman survey who responded "Data are insufficient" (a larger group than the "Entirely environmental" 17%) probably also get represented better when these sections are treated more broadly.--Nectar 05:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural explanations / Culture-only explanations 

message: copyright tag needs to be updated --Rikurzhen 08:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified the uploader, though s/he appears to only be intermittently active.--Nectar 10:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploader updated it. Looks in order.--Nectar 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright tag on FranzBoas.jpg needs to be updated 

message: The chart depicting outcomes for blacks, whites, and latinos controlled for IQ shows the figures in the third column to be intermediate between figures in the first and second columns. Any reason not to move the third column between the first two?--Nectar 10:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlling for IQ chart 

message: [From archive]
*"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)

text: ok. It seems it may be confusing to readers why the lead image is using 1981 data if an explanation isn't given. Also, I think the 'debate' caveat we currently have gives a poor impression of the field.. presenting the expert community as not being able to get past opposite views even on what the gap looks like. It'd be nice to bypass these issues if possible. Is it really not viable to use more recent data, like the 97 AFQT? If not, perhaps the details of the relationship between the Reynolds data and today's data can be explained in footnotes.--Nectar 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can cite the 97 AFQT, just see how Murray cites it. --Rikurzhen 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Give me a week and I may have time to put together all the new IQ data I can find. --Rikurzhen 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bell curves

message: IQ data
Test     	d   	White mean	Black mean	N        	Age              	Year   	Reference
Overall g	1.10	-         	-         	6,246,729	Adults           	Various	Roth, Bevier, Bobko et al. (2001)
AFQT '79 	1.21	?         	?         	?        	Adults           	1979   	reported in Herrnstein and Murray (1994)
AFQT '97 	0.97	?         	?         	?        	Adults           	1997   	reported in Murray (2005)
WAIS R   	1.01	101.4     	86.5      	1,880    	Adults           	1981   	Reynolds et al (1987)
WAIS III 	?   	?         	?         	?        	Adults           	1997   	?
WJ       	1.05	?         	?         	?        	Adults & Children	2001   	reported in Murray (2005); Schrank, F.A., K.S. McGrew, and R.W. Woodcock. 2001. Technical Abstract (Woodcock-Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No. 2). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
WJ       	0.99	?         	?         	?        	Children         	2001   	reported in Murray (2005); Schrank, F.A., K.S. McGrew, and R.W. Woodcock. 2001. Technical Abstract (Woodcock-Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No. 2). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
WISC IV  	0.78	103.2     	91.7      	1,745    	Children         	2003   	Prifitera, A., L.G. Weiss, D.H. Saklofske, et al. 2005. "The WISC-IV in the clinical assessment context." Pp. 3–32 in WISC-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives, edited by A. Prifitera, D. H. Saklofske, and L. G. Weiss.
Looks like Reynolds is the newest, largest data set for which we have actual IQ values for adults. --Rikurzhen 06:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  newest BW IQ data 

message: The length of the intro will probably be one of the first things discussed in the article's next peer review. The paragraph covering the controversy seems to presently be the least concise part. The two sentences advancing accusations of political bias seem to be sufficiently covered by the sentences preceding them:
*Some critics examine the fairness and validity of cognitive testing and racial categorization, as well as the reliability of the studies and the motives of the authors, on both sides. Some critics fear the misuse of the research, question its utility, or feel that comparing the intelligence of racial groups is itself unethical. 
Any arguments against removing the political accusations that follow the above sentences?--Nectar 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro length 

message: submit for peer review? --Rikurzhen 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are a couple of things that may still be able to be improved. I'd like to take a crack at maybe making the Within societies section more clear. I think the caption of the lead graph is somewhat confusing, as it seems those on the cultural side currently generally attribute the adult b-w gap as being one standard deviation (e.g. the recently added Fryer and Levitt study), rather than subscribing to Nisbett's proposal.--Nectar 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  submit for peer review 

message: BTW, Ultramarine, can you reference your sources consistent with the referencing style applied for the rest of the article (AYref)?--Nectar 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are cited adequately. You can change it yourself if you want another style.Ultramarine 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It breaks with professional standards to alternate between different referencing styles, and for this reason WP:CITE states: "Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." This is the same reason why WP articles choose US or British spelling and stick with it, rather than switching back and forth mid-article.--Nectar 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reference style is not one of the 3 allowed in Wikipedia. It lists the references on another page, something unique for this article. It has extensive arguments hidden in the footnotes which creates problems since the text also refers to subarticles. Preferably, everything should be converted Harvard and all submaterial moved to the subarticles or placed in the main text. I certainly do not endorse the strange system currently in use.Ultramarine 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This just shows that an enormous amount of detail is hidden in the footnotes. Again, this confusing since the main text at the  same time refers to the subarticles. The material in the footnoes, including the references, should be moved to the subarticles. There is no need for extensive references in a text that summarize a subarticle.Ultramarine 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense. Text "hidden" in footnotes is more accessible and more immediately connected to what it is detailing than text written in the sub-articles. Moreover, between this thread and the one above, you appear to be advocting for less and more details (respectively). --Rikurzhen 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It confusing that the text refers to two different other texts. It should be consolidated to one place, the subarticles. Also, there is no need for detailed references in the main article, duplicating the subarticle. If moving the hidden arguments and references in the notes to the subarticles, then there is no need to have a non-Wikpedia reference style.Ultramarine 01:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  referencing 

message: UL, your actions belie your arguments. If you believed that the article should consist only of unreferenced summaries, you would not have ignored the subarticles for the past months while you added text to the main article. You would not have argued against my call for improving the readability by summarizing unnecessary detail. It seems plain to me and probably to everyone else--including you--that Summary Style + descriptive footnotes + reference footnotes is better than Summary Style alone. Despite your rhetoric about footnotes (i.e. text at the bottom of the page) being "hidden", material written in a footnote is more proximal to the majority of readers than material written in a sub-article alone. Our current system maximizes readability and verifiability. If we can improve the readability further by tightening up the summary style a notch, we will have a model article. --Rikurzhen 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a text refering to two different other texts with more detail is confusing. Not following Wikpedia rules for citation is not good either. Both can be avoided by moving the details in the notes and many of the references to the subarticles.Ultramarine 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you've thought this thru. The details in the footnotes of any section certainly should also be in the corresponding subarticle, but it doesn't follow that the footnotes should be removed along with the footnoted references. --Rikurzhen 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is summary article. No need to have details duplicated in the footnotes and the subarticles.Ultramarine 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course compliance with WP:V is the "need". I don't have a count, but it looks like the modal footnote is just a Author-Date reference. The next most common footnote is a supporting quote, an explanation of the data supporting a summarized claims, or an explanation of how a calculation was performed, and etc. Only a small fraction of footnotes presents an expansion of the main text into the footnotes. These few footnotes are in a optional class, but I don't see what harm they could do. --Rikurzhen 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's useful for readers to be able to get more information about specific statements that they're interested in or skeptical toward, even if they're not interested enough to read all the sub-articles.--Nectar 05:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's important to keep in mind WP articles have no authorial credibility of their own, so statements are only worth the quality of their referencing.--Nectar 05:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Material should not be duplicated. References should follow the style guidelines.Ultramarine 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  referencing and summary style 

message: More material should be included on what the pro-genetic researchers really want. See this: Ultramarine 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone explains why, I will shortly add this material.Ultramarine 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine, please take it easy and let the discussions come to agreements on these things first. These discussions have enough to deal with without being expanded into edit wars. --Nectar 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rushton and the "white preservationists" 

message: Regardless of if the Pioneer Fund has caused biased research, its research is used by numerous Nazist and Racist groups and it has a long racist history. Thus, they should be mentioned in the intro. The head of the fund and IQ researcher Rushton has attended extreme far right meetings.Ultramarine 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pioneer Fund and policy implications 

message: Regardless of if the Pioneer Fund has caused biased research, it is very important in the history. No one has managed to mention an important pro-genetic researcher who has not recieved money from them. Thus, they should be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pioneer Fund in the history of the field 

message: Regardless of if the Pioneer Fund has caused biased research, its association with racism has caused a negative Media Portrayal. Another reason they should be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pioneer Fund and Media Portrayal 

message: I have to agree with Ultramarine and Ramdrake here - they have provided direct sources which logically connect the Pioneer Fund with potential bias.  Regardless if these connections are true in every case, or in any case, it is well cited, and relevant.  They are not conducting any OR, they are merely presenting material with citations elsewhere.
You may disagree with the logical attack (which can be seen as ad hominem, no doubt), which taints a researcher's conclusion based upon the source of their funding, and that funding source's history, but it is an attack that has been made, and one that is arguable.
Can we accept that prominent mention of the Pioneer Fund is relevant, but make sure the wording is clear that the implications are just that - not proof, but implications of potential bias? --JereKrischel 19:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly live with that, because that was all that was raised: the objection of an appearance of bias (or possible conflict of interest). But this objection is exactly why, for instance, in my neck of the woods, if anyone dies during a police operation, jurisdiction over the enquiry is turned over to another police body immediately, even though the original police force would have had jurisdiction. There are several such examples where rules have been put into place to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, because people have come to realize that whether or not the conflict of interest can be proved, just this appearance is enough to make for tainted results in a lot of people's minds. --Ramdrake 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.Ultramarine 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pioneer Fund and legitimate quotes regarding it 

message: ===Snyderman and Rothman===
[Copied from Talk:J. Philippe Rushton ]
:::::Once more, the 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is not evidence of what researchers think today.Ultramarine 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims about the survey being "irrelevant" aren't legitimate. The survey is the most recent gauge of the expert community's actual opinion and is supported by 4 more recent references, whereas you've provided zero references for your many original claims.  If you'd like to actually read the survey so that you don't have to make inaccurate claims about it that can be arranged. This is discussed ad infinitum here.--Nectar 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You provided none more relevant source for what the researchers think today. A twenty years old survey is uninteresting. Imagine if there was a 20 years old survey of meterologists, farmers, climate researchers, and others studying the weather. Is that interesting for if there is a majority support for global warming among climate researchers today? Ultramarine 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Anecdotal evidence is uninteresting. Do you have anything more recent than the 20 years old survery where race and IQ researchers where only a small group? Ultramarine 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're just going to not read the answers to your questions and repeat that you're right no matter what, I'm afraid there's not going to be much progress.--Nectar 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using ancedotal evidence. Do you have anything more recent than the survey as evidence for what researchers think?Ultramarine 05:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: His theory about the default position is uninteresting OR.Ultramarine 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snyderman and Rothman 

message: [Copied from Talk:J. Philippe Rushton ]
:::::Once more, the 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is not evidence of what researchers think today.Ultramarine 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims about the survey being "irrelevant" aren't legitimate. The survey is the most recent gauge of the expert community's actual opinion and is supported by 4 more recent references, whereas you've provided zero references for your many original claims.  If you'd like to actually read the survey so that you don't have to make inaccurate claims about it that can be arranged. This is discussed ad infinitum here.--Nectar 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You provided none more relevant source for what the researchers think today. A twenty years old survey is uninteresting. Imagine if there was a 20 years old survey of meterologists, farmers, climate researchers, and others studying the weather. Is that interesting for if there is a majority support for global warming among climate researchers today? Ultramarine 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Anecdotal evidence is uninteresting. Do you have anything more recent than the 20 years old survery where race and IQ researchers where only a small group? Ultramarine 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're just going to not read the answers to your questions and repeat that you're right no matter what, I'm afraid there's not going to be much progress.--Nectar 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using ancedotal evidence. Do you have anything more recent than the survey as evidence for what researchers think?Ultramarine 05:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: His theory about the default position is uninteresting OR.Ultramarine 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Snyderman and Rothman

message: please keep discussion within a thread on topic. if you want to discuss something new, start a new thread. this will be essential for anyone else who wants to examine the talk page. a restructuring of the material from the last day into topics would be useful. my intital attempt at this was reversed. --Rikurzhen 02:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk page etiquette 

message: Explain.Ultramarine 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article only about what is stated in peer-revewed articles only about the genetic role of IQ and race. It is about history, media, implications and so on.Ultramarine 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy sub-section is about those things. PF can be discussed there in a manner that conforms with WP policy. I have a secondary idea about this which I will raise in a separate thread. --Rikurzhen 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pioneer fund has importance for so many things that it cannot be placed in a subsection.Ultramarine 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was so important, then it would have appeared in the review papers I listed above. Please don't persue this agenda, you know it's not appropriate. --Rikurzhen 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is not an article only about what is stated in peer-revewed articles only about the genetic role of IQ and race. It is about history, media, implications and so on.Ultramarine 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The PF is not a topic of equal importance to the other tier 1 topics. It does not, for example, warrant presentation at the same level as the discussion of intelligence testing data. Your argument sustains the existence of a "controversy" section, which does in fact exist and which used to cover PF until you moved it out and up, but does not address the importance isssue. PF is not that important. Arguging this line is a very bad act. --Rikurzhen 01:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not been able to mention a single important pro-genetic researcher who has not been funded by them. So very important in history. Its research is cited by Nazists and current head attends meetings with them. So important for implications. There is questions of possible bias due to funding. The fund has also influenced the the media and academic portrayal of the field.Ultramarine 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The importance of a topic is not demonstrated by an editors' interest in it but by it's appearance in published works which discuss the topic. How many textbooks, manuals, review articles, encyclopedia articles, & etc. on this topic mention PF? The answer appears to be none or very few. This is a plainly obvious and non-negotiable truth.  --Rikurzhen 01:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, Google scholar lists 225 scholarly books and articles when searching for "Pioneer Fund" and "race". It is much more frequently mentioned in popular media discussing history, implications, racists connections and so on.Ultramarine 02:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is much more frequently mentioned in popular media discussing history, implications, racists connections and so on. And therefore it should be discussed in the public controversy section. It would not be appropriate, for example, to have a tier 1 section titled "The Mismeasure of Man", even though it is perhaps the #1 source from the public's POV, being cite 993 times in Google Scholar and having 1910 hits for "mismeasure of man". I can't stress enough how inappropriate your treatment of this issue is. --Rikurzhen 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nazi connections, possible bias, and what the reserchers advocate for policy do not fit into public controversy.Ultramarine 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Many critics of the research mentions the connections, thus it should be included. The statement is sourced. Also, I do not understand your complaint, it is stated that there is no evidence. The question of splitting or one section can be discussed.Ultramarine 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why it can't be discussed in a policy-abiding fashion in topic-oriented structures (i.e. not tier 1 just for PF). --Rikurzhen 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Pioneer Fund section 

message: We can:
# expand the scope of the "controvesy" section to include "political" controversy (nearly synonymous with "public" and perhaps closer to the relevant meaning).
# the policy impilcations section could be moved there.
# it would also more easily hold the materials that UL et al are trying to document. 
--Rikurzhen 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad. Should be moved to the end of the article and include the implications section.Ultramarine 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps to maintain a topic-oriented structure (i.e., not having a separate section just for PF stuff), then I think it is a good idea. --Rikurzhen 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Public debate and policy implications"Ultramarine 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can work on the title, perhaps by looking at the content after we put it together. For now, just go for it. --Rikurzhen 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I did it. It can probably use some more attention. --Rikurzhen 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  expand Public controversy to include political controversy 

message: JK wrote: Worldwide, human populations can be arbitrarily geographically bounded into five less than perfectly distinct continental areas
this change is not supported by the reference for that section:  --Rikurzhen 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arbitrarily 

message: I'm just going to list the changes, as they occur in the left column of this edit: 
1. "can be arbitrarily geographically bounded" - Discussed above.
2. "Nearly all" vs. "most" -Discussed above.
3. "Of this variation" - Unnecessary.
4. "positive/directional selection" by definition indicates selection for advantageous traits.
5. "Some of the studies make inferences on possible differences between populations based on known functions of individual genes that have shown selection with biogeographic distributions."  
- This seems less concise and clear than the other version.
6. "The nature of the selective pressure which led to these variants is unknown, and any specific effects of these differing frequencies, if any, on IQ is unknown."
-The other version already seems clear, and this version is 3 times the length. --Nectar 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point by point

message: Let me see what I can do with the section.  The situation has definitely changed since it's been moved below the expert opinion section. --Nectar
:I don't think we need to repeat the S&R reference/discussion.  At most we can refer up (or down) to where it is discussed with a single sentence.  But the "stereotype threat" thing I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what it is even trying to claim.  It's not that I disagree, it just looks like gibberish.  Apparently someone allegedly misunderstood something at some point, but that's about the most I can get out of it.  But from what I can guess, it seems to be about some sort of alleged subtly wrong interpretation of some obscure technical point (by somebody)... none of which really sounds like something that needs discussing in an already overly long article. LotLE×talk 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, that's probably an accurate description of media portrayal. Ceteris paribus, shorter is better, but zero is too little. --Rikurzhen 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media portrayal

message: The paragraph says this:
:The most widely accepted view among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences among individuals of the same race reflect real, functionally/socially significant, and substantially genetic differences in the general intelligence factor, g. It is likewise widely believed that average IQ differences among races reflect real and significant differences in the same g factor.; ; ;  While these conclusions are largely beyond technical dispute, the nature of g is still an active area of research. 
Basically it says this: IQ differences among individuals in the same race are acknowledged to reflect (...) differences in g. Likewise, average IQ differences among races reflect differences in the same g factor. While these conclusions are true, what g represents (its nature) is still being researched.
In other words, it says IQ differences are due to differences in g but it isn't clear yet what g means. Thus the conclusion is we're not sure what the differences in IQ really mean. I'm oversimplifying, but please believe me that this is what the average reader will get out of this... zippo, no offense intended.
What was intended was: 
:Differences in IQ have real, social and functional consequences, both within and across races. Within a same race, we know a good part of the IQ result is genetic, which may or may not be true across races. Researchers think IQ is a good indicator of some kind of overall pure number that relates closely to actual intelligence (g),but that is still under some dispute.
Very unencyclopedic way to put it, but much easier to grasp.--Ramdrake 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That the fundamental nature of g is unknown does not mean that "we're not sure what the differences in IQ really mean". We do not know the fundamental nature of gravity (e.g. quantum gravity), but that does not mean that we don't understand a lot about it. The same is true with g, which should have been introduced in the "intelligence" background section. If the background section is not clear on g, then we should make improvements there. --Rikurzhen 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not what I thought you were pointing out. But on that point the two are not "conflated" not necessarily linked. g is about differences in intelligence, and the real world importance of intelligence is about differences in g. Maybe you should try to make your point again? --Rikurzhen 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the part about what g is might belong in another paragraph somewhere else in the article. That way the paragraph would just state what differences in IQ (socially and functionnally, mostly) mean and what the majority of researchers think is the cause of these differences. That differences in IQ mean something in life because they are related to differences in g which is the variable that experts associate with functionial issues is scientifically correct, but not needed to make the point for the layman. Sorry, but this is as clear as I can make this explanation.--Ramdrake 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly an idea worth entertaining. The current formulation is built to specifically contrast what's known about within versus between race differences, so that that distinction is fresh in the readers minds (e.g. within race heritability doesn't logically compel between race heritability). Everywhere g is used we could just as well say "general cognitive abililty" or "intelligence". --Rikurzhen 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st paragraph of the introduction to "Culture or genetic explanation": issue of legibility