Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 39

message: Was the last racial IQ assessment really taken in 1981? If so, why was the Reynolds piece about it from 6 years later? Is that some kind of typo?
:The 1986 Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study results weren't published until 1992 either. You might want to sign your comments btw. --Zero g 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1981 assessment 

message: Just as a pointer here (please ignore if you wish), I've tried to summarize what I understand is the mainstream "opinion" of different "expert groups" on relevant issues that touch the subject. Please feel free to add.
#Psychometricians: IQ is measurable, in good part genetically-defined and the rest is environmental. Racial differences in IQ are most probably partly genetic. (Snyderman and Rothman survey, for example)
#Psychologists: (in general): same opinion, but less certainty on the possibility of partly-genetic contribution to racial differences. (APA statement)
#Anthropologists: "Race" exists as a social construct which correlates poorly with biological categories of humans, i.e. if they exits "biological races" aren't the same as "social races". (AAA statement, mostly)
#Neuroscientists: Given the known plasticity of the brain, small variations in general brain volume poorly explain differing IQ results. In any case, the only racial-difference studies conducted so far in this field are about facial recognition, gender and race recognition thus far. Overall, "intelligence" is still poorly understood in a mechanistic sense, but great strides are being made rapidly. (still looking for the best possible reference, but the consensus is clear so far).
I'll add more as I come across them.
This kind of classification is NOR unless it has been made elsewhere. --Rikurzhen 02:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rik, this is just a pointer, and definitely not for inclusion in the article. So, not sure what you're concerned about???--Ramdrake 15:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh --Rikurzhen 18:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert Opinion*s*

message: However made that is dumb or ignorant "white" "black" "hispanic" "asian" are American street words and inaccurate and incorrect categories. This should really be messured with the proper "-oid" names. --guest
i agree. also the categories are very general. like what does asian denote? chinese? indian?
:It generally denotes Eastern Asian, such as Chinese, Japanaese, Korean, and most nationalities of Southeastern Asia.--Ramdrake 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first picture 

message: "still disputed" -- really? most of the discussions have been archived at this point, and there doesn't appear to be any live debate on the talk page. the purpose of those tags is to attract readers attention to an actual conflict or controversy, not hypothetical or archived ones. --Rikurzhen 19:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a lot of pressure to reduce the size of this talk page through archiving, which has been done. Personnally, I was taking a bit of a breather before continuing the work on the article proper. But the disputed tags still belong up there as far as I'm concerned.--Ramdrake 20:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask the question of whether the tags are serving their intended purpose. Note that they say "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Perhaps you or JK could construct a short list of which archived discussion(s) each tag refers to. In the current state of affairs, they are of little value: I've seen no improvement in the quantity or quality of contributions with them in place. If I were new to this article, I would find nothing helpful on the talk page and probably leave without comment. --Rikurzhen 20:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Rikurzhen - each one of them probably deserves a significant treatment.  I think though, we should try to continue our original idea from several weeks ago to pick on topic and put it to rest at a time - often we get side tracked, and fail to come to reasonable compromise simply because of the distraction factor. --JereKrischel 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed tags 

message: does anyone know the effect size (measured by a statistic called d) of brain size differences by race? the effect size (for the B-W IQ gap) is d = ~1 among adults. it would be a good addition to include that statisitic for brain size as well. another statistic of interest is the within family, within race, between race ANOVA table for brain size. we have this data for IQ in the signficance section. --Rikurzhen 21:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  effect size of brain size variation 

message: What data was used for the Asian curve? As Flynn outlines in his book, Japanese and Chinese Americans actually have slightly lower IQs than whites. As for Asians in Asia, the American Psychological Association's Task Report on Intelligence says the following:
"It may be worth noting that the interpretation of test scores obtained by Asians in Asia has been controversial in its own right. Lynn (1982) reported a mean Japanese IQ of 111, Flynn (1991) estimated it to be between 101 and 105; Stevenson et al (1985), comparing the intelligence-test performance of children in Japan, Taiwan and the United States, found no substantive differences at all. Given the general problems of cross-cultural comparison, there is no reason to expect precision or stability in such estimates."
"Nevertheless some interest attaches to these particular comparisons: they show that the well-established differences in school achievement among the same three groups (Chinese and Japanese children are much better at math than American children) do not simply reflect differences in psychometric intelligence."
:"the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273-278). " (Rushton and Jensen 2005)
:I believe there was some skepticism about the White-Asian IQ gap in the 80s and early 90s, but you don't see that in literature now AFAIK. Historically, the average IQs coming from East Asian populations have trended upwards, pulling away from Europeans, so this may account for some of the earlier disagreement. --Rikurzhen 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data used for bell curve image 

message: RE: Reference 31 - 10-23-06
I'm a bit confused. I referenced from one Wikipdia article to another, and the replicated but condensed text taken from an article of the same volume to another should not need further attribution, as the validity of the referenced article should stand on its own. Nor should it create any issues regarding “copying,” especially since by definition no copyright applies to Wikipedia text.
I'm not seeing the problem here. Unless you site a specific issue, I'm at a loss to redress your concern.
With all due respect.
Kevin Murray 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin, referencing within Wikipedia is only as good as the material you reference. And, as I explained to you on your talk page, the material you added to the article from the William Shockley article is unfortunately unreferenced (that I could see) in the original article itself, so that's not a good reference. What you need is to find the reference from which this material was originally taken.--Ramdrake 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing within Wikipedia 

message: Ramdrake has convinced me that there is a citation problem regarding the paragraph regarding William Shockley; however, I believe that the problem lies with the quality of references at the Shockley article.  I have placed a citation needed marker at that article, and within the the citation to the Shockley article here, I have placed a disclaimer questioning this issue.  The section at Shockley has a reference under the title-header to a PBS article which substantiates the paragraph, but not all information there.  However, I remeber the period of time and the issues; this all rings true but we need to dig up much more solid documentation than my feeble grey cells.
Cheers,
Kevin Murray 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing Shockley