Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 9

message: Some folks seem not to realize or admit that "race" vs "IQ" or "wealth" vs "nutrition" may describe the exact same abstract disparity. Have you considered this possibility?  Many scientists have, but, random joe wikipedia user would not know that after reading this article.  Given this scientific fact that the  disparity is larger and more abstract than just "race" vs "IQ" why do some people and this article repeatedly only focus on just one pair method of description?  An abstract disparity does exist but words used to describe it have to be neutral and certainly shouldn't hint at unscientific conclusions by only framing an abstract issue one way.  There is no scientific or otherwise consensus to present this abstract disparity exclusively in terms of "race" and "IQ".  Why did someone hurriedly create redirects from Nutrition and intelligence to Race and intelligence when I offhandedly suggested it above?  zen master    T  05:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you could communicate your position more clearly.  All the concerns you express appear to be addressed in the article, and at great well-written length.  Even issues about the validity of race as used in these studies are addressed.  Hopefully, we have progressed beyond studies of this association, and on to the issues of identifying genes that explain some of the individual variation in intelligence.  Hopefully, any variations in gene frequency between the races will speed discovery in this science that promises such benefits.  I wouldn't be surprised if the wealth and nutrition influences you are curious about, to the extent they are also genetically influenced, have explanatory value for part of the genetic component of intelligence.  Would you be surprised if there are genetic variations in the handling of nutrients, in risk taking or courage, in avariciousness?  I wouldn't, the suprise instead would be if there weren't variations, not just between individuals, but between races or populations.  For facts about such variations to be more than mere curiousities, they should contribute to the discovery and elucidation of the mechanisms of the relevant genes.--Silverback 08:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
----
I would love to read Nutrition and intelligence, and I assume most of the other editors on this page would, too. Zen, you seem to assume that the editors on this page focus on Race and intelligence out of malice. I'm not sure that is so (in any case, it's not a helpful position). There are a ton of  related articles that I would love to read. Some are still in their infancy, others don't exist: Sex and intelligence, Genes and intelligence, Nutrition and intelligence, Nurture and intelligence (including Playing Mozart to your unborn child and intelligence) and whatnot. Oh for Education and intelligence! For some of these issues, there is quite a lot of scientific data, others are just hunches. Some of the articles will be as strong as the present one, others will be speculation. But by all means research them, write them; I am confident the editors from this page will help. And if you (or anybody else) is up to the task of writing a comprehensive overview of all factors that may correlate with (or even cause) intelligence, I will rejoice. 
But this page is about Race and intelligence. There is a lot to be said, and a lot to be learned about it. It's important. And it's extremely well presented in this article. Arbor 07:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Why did someone create Nutrition and intelligence as a redirect to here?   How can this article be "well presented" given the misuse of language?  There is no scientific method here. zen master    T  07:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Let me cut in here:) To answer your question: the redirect was made by User:gracefool, I don't know why. He vote keep on the VfD, but thought this article is very POV. Arbor 08:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm glad you mentioned scientific method, ZM, let's focus on that for a while. Can we have a discussion on that topic without your going off on what you feel are the demerits of this article? If you can't then I'll go back to working on my book. P0M 08:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so let's focus on applying the scientific method to language neutrality.  Do you see the potential for confusing cause and effect by describing a diparity only in X, Y terms when Y also happens to be a cause?  Do you acknowledge the abstract nature of the disparity? zen master    T  08:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that is going off on what you think are the demerits of the article. What I had in mind was finding out whether it is your understanding that a theory can be proven. P0M 08:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The disparity is abstract and WP should not use misleading language 

message: Check out the global warming article. It covers the scientific consensus and the major contrarian view. Notice also the existence of many related articles. This set provides a practical example that supports our treatment of this and related articles. To draw the parallels:
* Global warming -- Race and intelligence
* Global warming controversy - IQ test controversy
* Attribution of recent climate change - Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation)
It would be inappropriate to rename Global warming to accomodate the solar-activity POV, because it is not the majority scientific POV. It would also be inappropriate to try to rewrite the global warming article for the sake of "neutrality" in such a way that the scientific consensus about human impact on global warming is obscured. I'm hoping this example will help people to view this topic objectively. --Rikurzhen 14:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Your analogy is invalid.  The title Global warming does not in any way hint as to the cause of the issue. Unlike this article, within global warming each cause is presented using its own descriptive language, rather than being forced within one framework even considering there is a scientific consensus there that it is "man-made" though the exact causes or mechanics of how it works are still unknown. Perhaps you mean you analogy, truthfully, as in the "race vs IQ disparity" is man-made?  More telling is the fact that there is no scientific consensus on this issue, the citations I provided above prove that. Countless scientists and scholars have effectively rendered any and all conclusions or inferred conclusions about "race" and "IQ" to be invalid scientifically, repeated harping on a correlation between results from dubious IQ tests and one bit of information about the test taker is not evidence for anything. The fact that this subject/article resorts to language propaganda/misdirection taints any and all conclusions on its own. zen master T  23:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming should be our model 

message: Another problem:
There is no consensus to present the issue (=??) in terms of race. 14 June
Does that mean: "There is no consensus to explain differences in average test results across the [racial] divide in terms of race"?
:As you imply, P0M, this is a red herring.  The "issue" is why racial groups differ in measured intelligence.  Presentation without invoking race is impossible, even if race turns out to play no explanatory role. --DAD 04:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another problem

message: :I was responding directly to Patrick's statement about not understanding my "cause and effect" point. Race is not a "prima facia" cause of difference in intelligence, 17 June
O.K.  Here we have a fairly clear instance for what Zen-master means by his "cause and effect" riffs.
::And in no place does the article say that race is a cause of differences in intelligence.  It could be, if it were shown that a genetic factor produces both a racial phenotype and an intelligence difference (since the latter is certainly not recognized as a racial phenotype, thank goodness).  But even genetic factors do not indicate a causal relationship: we may also entertain informative non-causal hypotheses, e.g. that some intelligence-influencing factors, genetic or otherwise, may have segregated with race-related features.  Regardless, I'd emphasize that nothing is a "prima facie" cause of differences in intelligence.  The statement is virtually content-free.  --DAD 03:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cause and Effect" means...

message: :Has the possibility of direct or indirect IQ sabotage been considered? 14 June
As an explanation for why Blacks' test averages are worse than Whites' test averages? I guess I should add it to my outline above. When some people in power can cause great harm by merely being negligent, it's hard to prove that they are engaging in sabotage. Do you know the history of the Saturday School that was carried on in East Palo Alto, beginning in 1966 I think it was? A black member of the community named Robert Hoover was elected to the county school board in 1967 or 1968 as the result of a spirited campaign, and the Saturday Schools may have been phased out as the regular schools came under a more enlightened administration. P0M 02:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sabotage has been considered, and demonstrated in one case: see Gottfredson, 2005, p.172-.  It's an example, only a decade ago, of professionals tampering with test content in order to eliminate disparate impact (lower performance by some racial groups on tests of cognitive ability), to their financial gain.  I'm not aware of recent examples.  Given the profligate racism of earlier eras, I wouldn't be surprised to find historical examples, but I would be very surprised to find any tampering, either way, in the literature.  Other examples welcome.  --DAD 03:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy Theory or Malign Neglect?