Talk:Race and intelligence (average gaps among races)

message: Wow someone has done an incredible job with this article.  This is and the other articles in the series are probably the best introduction to the IQ debate available anywhere.
: I would be interested in the racial demographics of the contributors to this article.  It goes without saying that the racial classification of the individuals who hold the beliefs purported in this article is something that any moderators of this article (who themselves would have political and social viewpoints that may be far from objective) would be wise to look at in order to determine how representative this article is of the variety of viewpoints that exist (I'm sure that this point recurs frequently).  
:Also, given a subjective opinion (ie: "This is and the other articles in the series are probably the best introduction to the IQ debate available anywhere.") sounds more like an advertisement for alcholic beverage that it does for sound scientific and apolitical analysis (though, nobody said that that is what we're looking for here).  
--Nukemason 19:53, August 1, 2006 (UTC)
::I generally support Chomsky's opinion on that issue:
:::I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I work would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race." I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction.
::But figures in this field who don't consider group differences off-limits have included representation from Whites, Jews, Asians, and African Americans (Thomas Sowell ).--Nectar 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: The text present in great detail very old data and even has several images. These are not very interesting because 1) skull size and shape has changed and 2) doubtful methodology, for example many of the old studies claimed to show to whites had larger brain size than East Asians. Therefore they should be summarized in a brief paragraph and the images removed. Objections? Ultramarine 16:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some studies, both historical and modern, have shown that Whites have larger brain size than East Asians.  Others (such as Morton's Crania Americana) showed that East Asians' were larger than Whites.  However, when adjusted for average body size, East Asians always come out above Whites in terms of encephalization quotients.  And even though the pictures are old, the illustrations are important because they show the extent that the same thing that is being debated today was known over a hundred years ago, and that the same trend (Black --> White --> East Asian) appeared then as it does today.  And what is your evidence for the claim that the methodology was doubtful?  Dd2 05:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my cited paper. Ultramarine 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which cited paper?  "How 'Caucasoids' got such big crania and why they shrank"?  Dd2 15:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Ultramarine 17:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old measurments

message: Here is the explanation for the deletion of this paragraph:
"Several historical studies from the 19th century and early 20th century found racial differences. However, they often argued that whites had the largest measurements which was the politically correct view at the time. This is different from more recent results . The results may also be of little relevance for current differences, because, as noted later, brain size and shape has changed greatly."
:Problems with this paragraph:
*The studies that I know of that included East Asians ranked them in front of Whites in terms of brain size
*Insinuating that the studies showed Whites had larger brain size out of political correctness is original research
*The claim that the results have little relevance or may be different today (and it's not; the order is still the same) has no citation and as it stands is original research.  Dd2 05:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed due to above critic. Ultramarine 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted paragraph

message: The data is clear that test results are consistantly different for racial groups.  What is not clear is the significance of the data.  Tests can be culturally biased, neonatal health can affect subsequent developement, societal bias can affect things, as well as poverty, and societal expectations.
I would be interested in the  black females/white females comparison as separate from blackmale/white male results.  That would hold bias/poverty/nutrition variables constant and focus on societal expectations.  If black females are close to white females whereas black males are below white males it would suggest a diffent cause for the data than if the analysis shows no difference by gender.
152.133.6.195 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great points, Todd.--futurebird 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  data analysis by gender 

message: It is plainly a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to find supportive data unrelated to the question of Race and Intelligence to build a point.  --JereKrischel 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: I've added the NPOV tag due to the lack of definition over "black" or "white". without this, the average IQ numbers do not mean anything, and can only be a POV rather than fact. --Rebroad 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations are ubiquitous in this series of articles, but happen to not be on that sentence. They've been added. --W. D. Hamilton 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of these sources are over ten years old. A lot chanes in that time. Do you have anything more recent? futurebird 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lengthy discussion of BW IQ scores in the main article and this article. The discussion in the main article is more up-to-date. --W. D. Hamilton 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Great point, Rebroad.  These data are meaningless without a clear definition. futurebird 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a definition of "black" or "white" in these articles. All I see is that 52 out of 100 scientisis who were contacted for the article were willing to say race was linked to IQ... back in 1994 (and, the link need not be due to entirely genetic factors.)futurebird 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These source don't define "black" or "white" because these terms are universally understood in the context used, but Neisser 1996 does give definitions. They are the same as those found in the main article, which gives relevant background on the issue of race. --W. D. Hamilton 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a citation to support your assertion that "these terms are universally understood"? --JereKrischel 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, your "3+ major sources" certainly do not illustrate or prove a predominance over the other major sources, that challenge the racialist POV.  Neither is your use of POV based rhetoric (the characterization of "partly-genetic" and "environment only") within the terms of organization of the article appropriate.  It would be just as POV pushing to characterize it using the terms "racist" and "anti-racist" (rhetoric used by some anti-hereditarians).  Furthermore, creating 30k+ of tit-for-tat meta-analysis of evidence is worthy of a research paper, but not very encyclopedic.  Please, take your wonderful work, and put it someplace more appropriate like gnxpwiki.com.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research journal for detailed meta-analysis of evidence. --JereKrischel 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is clear that many editors think these articles are non-neutral, but in fact these editors actually have a problem with the neutrality of the researchers being cited. --causa sui talk 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better to characterize it as a problem of balance - researchers on both sides of the issue will have their own POV, but both POVs should be presented with some balance.  Currently, the articles read like a research paper doing a meta-analysis for only one POV. --JereKrischel 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text describing the BW gap as it is described by the WSJ and APA reports (cited above) has been removed from this article. In this case, the "one POV" is like the "one POV" that anthropogenic climate change is real. But moreover, the reasons given for removal are that the terms "Black" and "White" are problematic. --W. D. Hamilton 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From your APA citation - These groups (we avoid the term "race") are defined and self-defined by social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable physical characteristics such as skin color.  As well as, The Genetic Hypothesis. It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. .  I find it hard to believe that given the prominent importance you put on the APA citation, that you would disagree with the problematic nature of your POV pushes in this article.  Given the APA text, shouldn't this article be named, Groups and intelligence (United States)? --JereKrischel 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV continues 

message: You guys might think these data are meaningless without a definition, but the researchers don't, and Wikipedia is reporting their views neutrally. --causa sui talk 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your "3+ major sources" certainly do not illustrate or prove a predominance over the other major sources, that challenge the racialist POV.  Neither is your use of POV based rhetoric (the characterization of "partly-genetic" and "environment only") within the terms of organization of the article appropriate.  It would be just as POV pushing to characterize it using the terms "racist" and "anti-racist" (rhetoric used by some anti-hereditarians).  Furthermore, creating 30k+ of tit-for-tat meta-analysis of evidence is worthy of a research paper, but not very encyclopedic.  Please, take your wonderful work, and put it someplace more appropriate like gnxpwiki.com.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research journal for detailed meta-analysis of evidence. --JereKrischel 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is clear that many editors think these articles are non-neutral, but in fact these editors actually have a problem with the neutrality of the researchers being cited. --causa sui talk 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better to characterize it as a problem of balance - researchers on both sides of the issue will have their own POV, but both POVs should be presented with some balance.  Currently, the articles read like a research paper doing a meta-analysis for only one POV. --JereKrischel 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text describing the BW gap as it is described by the WSJ and APA reports (cited above) has been removed from this article. In this case, the "one POV" is like the "one POV" that anthropogenic climate change is real. But moreover, the reasons given for removal are that the terms "Black" and "White" are problematic. --W. D. Hamilton 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From your APA citation - These groups (we avoid the term "race") are defined and self-defined by social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable physical characteristics such as skin color.  As well as, The Genetic Hypothesis. It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. .  I find it hard to believe that given the prominent importance you put on the APA citation, that you would disagree with the problematic nature of your POV pushes in this article.  Given the APA text, shouldn't this article be named, Groups and intelligence (United States)? --JereKrischel 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a neutrality dispute