Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 21

message: What is the average IQ for East Indians (South Asians) and Middle Easterners (since it is not noted here). Zachorious 10:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK the data is not great for those populations, but Lynn gives estimates around 89 for the near East and 82 for South Asia, with 84 for the N. Africa to South Asia axis. See Race_and_intelligence#_note-34 and . My guess would be that there is a lot of variation among East Indians subpopulations. Emmigrants from these regions, of course, score higher when living in Western countries. --Rikurzhen 10:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I was suprised to see South Asians ranked so low, considering their achievments outside South Asia (like being the highest median income for the US of any ethnic group). Seems like there are no data on Middle Eastern men (unless they group Middle Easterners with White Europeans). Zachorious 11:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: South Asian performance in western countries is likely influenced by selective top-tier migration.  Near East and West Asia actually both refer to the Middle East area.  The discussion of this chapter in Lynn's book in this book review is pretty interesting (ctrl f "near east" to go to the section on that chapter).--Nectar 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably that the average IQ of those who have the resources to emigrate is higher. Nnp 17:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about East Indians and Middle Easterners?

message: Looking at the brain gene papers, I do not even see any mention of race in the abstracts. Please quote. Why should this be mentioned in the main article and somewhere in the subarticles? Whyu should this be mentioned two times when many critical studies have been removed to the subarticles? Ultramarine 19:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't use the word race, Ultramarine. They are looking at many dozens of populations. The sicklecell allele is clinal, but the sicklecell phenotype still affects one socially defined race more than others. --Rikurzhen 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see nothing worth including in the main article. Race is not mentioned. Some genes involved in the brain have varying frequency when measured at different places in the world. Looking at the Microcephalin gene, the distrubtion does not follow claimed IQ scores. Europeans have a higher frequency than East Asians and Latin America most of all.Ultramarine 20:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at APSM, people from the Middle East and Europe have a higher frequency than East Asians. The highest is found in New Guinea. Hardly follows claimed IQ scores either. Ultramarine 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point made by the description is that brain affecting genes can and do in fact vary by geography, not that these genes explain the IQ gap. I believe the context was the defense of the plausibility of a genetic contribution to the black-white-asian IQ gap. --Rikurzhen 20:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybee we should state that if there is a genetic cause, then these studies suggest that the smartest people are in Latin America and New Guinea.Ultramarine 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. Right after we prove the monogenic inheritance of IQ. That's microcephalin, right? ASPM didn't make to the new world, no? --Rikurzhen 20:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ASPM have the highest frequency in New Guinea but a low frequency in Latin America. Overall, it seems that people from New Guinea are the smartest in the world.Ultramarine 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ironic given Jared Diamond's claim to that effect. are you now satisified that this stuff is relevant? --Rikurzhen 20:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw wrong, ASPM is slightly higher at some European places. I am not convinced, these genes do not follow claimed IQ scores between races. We could mention it in one of the subarticles.Ultramarine 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing for arguments sake? They (we) do not purport to explain the IQ differences, only to provide evidence that such difference could plausibly be due to genetic differences -- that is, that populations differ in the frequency of alleles, including alleles that affect brain function. There's no reason to expect that any single gene (even a gene knownn to affect IQ) will reflect the phenotypic gap 1:1. For example, each population may have it's own unique alleles that cause the IQ gap, in which case such a pattern would never be observed. --Rikurzhen 20:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's generally assumed and commonly argued in this area that races don't/can't vary in neural genetics.  We could expand the sentence to include that the authors of one or two of those papers conclude some of the genes have been under selective pressure.  This is even more germane because it's commonly argued genetic change between lineages has only occured as climatological adaption since the migration out of Africa.--Nectar 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good too. --Rikurzhen 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see little new for this article in these studies. That some genes vary with geography is nothing new, skin color does this. Again, lets mention them in some subarticle. Ultramarine 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it should be included, we clearly states that these genes do not follow claimed racial differences in IQ.Ultramarine 21:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly fine with that. I think before we said that they may have absolutely nothing to do with IQ differences, racial or otherwise. --Rikurzhen 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  brain allele papers 

message: Lynn is referred to as a white supremacist every time he's brought up on this page, but so far no evidence or reason to think this has been mentioned. Is this just rhetorical flourish? (I assume it's not).--Nectar 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no hard evidence, but Lynn supports eugenics. ViewFromNowhere 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lynn

message: i added references inside footnotes to existing text in the brain size and reaction time sub-subsection. UL deleted them. These references were copied from the corresponding section of the subarticle, which those sentences were in turn summarizing. The references were not being hidden in the footnotes, they were being unhidden from the subarticle. A footnote that is printed on the same page as the noted sentence isn't hidden; it's explicitly easier to find -- it doesn't even take a new page load to bring them up. Footnotes that link to the relevant section of the subarticle would be a substitute, but I see no reason to delete them -- they're adding info, not taking it away. --Rikurzhen 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleting footnotes 

message: ===previous version===
Cognitive ability scores for the ten global genetic clusters identified in previous genetic cluster analysis() have been surveyed by Richard Lynn().  Lynn regards these ten population groups as races, and extracts racial averages from 620 published studies surveying a total of 813,778 tested individuals.  When taken as individual national averages, the data available, particularly regarding the developing world, is speculative due to limited sampling, year of testing, and varying type of cognitive ability test used. Lynn's previous work, including the trade book IQ and the Wealth of Nations with Tatu Vanhanen, have received widespread and strong criticism for both bias and error.(Sociologist Thomas Volken argues the data for national IQs is "highly deficient," citing limited sampling and varying tests and years (Volken). In a review of The Bell Curve, Leon Kamin writes that "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity."()  In contrast to Kamin's strongly worded attack on Lynn, W. D. Hamilton described Lynn in a review of another of Lynn's books as doing "an excellent job with the facts" and being "brave [and] thick-skinned ... to swim against ... popular antirealistic currents." Examples of problematic national IQ figures include that the stated average IQ score of 59 for Equatorial Guinea is based on one test of 48 children aged 10-14 in 1984; the Ethiopian average is derived from a study of Ethiopians who immigrated to Israel a year prior, and whose low scores were thought by the original authors to be a reflection of temporary adjustment to a different culture and language (note that this data is not used in the averages presented below). Kamin also argued Lynn selectively excluded data showing a similar score in Whites and sub-Saharan Africans: "Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils." ()) 
In general, Lynn lists East Asians and Europeans as demonstrating the highest average IQ, indigenous Americans and other Eurasians with intermediate average IQ, and Africans and Australian Aborigines with the lowest average IQ. According to Lynn, when the studies are grouped and taken as averages for the ten racial groups, the argument for their reliability is that, though additional evidence may be required to confirm some of the more limited estimates, many have very high reliability in the sense that different studies give similar results, as well as that they correlate highly with performance in international studies of achievement in mathematics and science and with national economic development().  Lynn argues established environmental hypotheses can explain a substantial amount of these differences. The data set for sub-Saharan Africans around the world, the one most often criticized, is drawn from 155 different studies with a combined sample of 387,286 people. 57 of the studies are from countries in Africa, 54 from western countries, and 16 from non-western countries outside of Africa.( )
Some Ashkenazi Jews score significantly higher than any other group.(Lynn estimates United States and British Ashkenazim IQ scores of 107-115, in contrast to average IQ of Ashkenazim in Israel at 103.  He suggests this estimate may be lower due to selective migration effects in relation to the U.S. and Britain, and immigrants from the former Soviet Block countries having posed as Ashkenazim.) An IQ of 70 is often associated with mental retardation, but deficits in adaptive behavior, such as telling the time, interacting socially, and looking after oneself, have only limited correlation with IQ, and are more important than IQ in determining whether a person is able to live an independent life.((, p. 177).  reported that on the basis of IQ alone 10 times as many Blacks as Whites would be classified as retarded, but when adaptive behavior measures are added to the criterion, this difference completely disapears.  Some ethnic differences in cognitive ability appear in some aspects of cognitive ability and not others (see below; , p. 178).  The Black-White disparity seen in IQ does not appear in some basic cognitive functions that don't involve more than minimal elaboration, transformation, or other mental manipulation (, p. 178; ).)
IQ scores vary greatly among different nations for related groups. Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US. Some reports indicate that the Black–White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S.(). American Blacks average about 7-20% European admixture(;); UK admixtures are not as well-studied.  Many studies also show differences in IQ between different groups of Whites. In Israel, large gaps in test scores and achievement separate Ashkenazi Jews from other groups such as the Sephardi().
===new version===
Cognitive ability scores for the ten global genetic clusters identified in previous genetic cluster analysis() have been surveyed by Richard Lynn(). In general, Lynn lists East Asians and Europeans as demonstrating the highest average IQ, indigenous Americans and other Eurasians with intermediate average IQ, and Africans and Australian Aborigines with the lowest average IQ. Lynn's previous work, including the trade book IQ and the Wealth of Nations with Tatu Vanhanen, have received widespread and strong criticism for both bias and error, but has also been used as a source of IQ data and hypotheses in several peer-reviewed studies.
IQ scores vary greatly among different nations for related groups. Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US. Some reports indicate that the Black–White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S.(). American Blacks average about 7-20% European admixture(;); UK admixtures are not as well-studied.  Many studies also show differences in IQ between different groups of Whites. In Israel, large gaps in test scores and achievement separate Ashkenazi Jews from other groups such as the Sephardi().
===Comments===
First stop your practice of hiding information you do not like in footnotes. Restore the hidden information, then we can continue.Ultramarine 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be nice. --Rikurzhen 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to restore the hidden information? Ultramarine 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to leave the version that Lulu put up for the time being while we edit this text on the talk page. There's no reason to fight over the footnotes as we intend to rewrite the entire thing anyway. Put your energy into the rewrite so we can replace the existing text, footnote and all. --Rikurzhen 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am satisfied that the very minimal description of world-wide scores is OK.  If we limit mention of Lynn to the few sentences that Rikurzhen used, it seems perfectly fair also only to indicate criticism of Lynn in a sentence, as is done right now.  It's really only presentation of those detailed numbers claiming Africans and Aborigines have IQs in the moderate mental retardation level that heightens my concern that criticism be fully presented.  If all we say is (roughly) "Lynn ranks these half dozen groups in this order"... well, I still don't believe Lynn's right, but it's also not the direct affront of telling readers that there are whole continents of idiots who can't learn to read or feed themselves. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit it on talk page then 

message: First stop your practice of hiding information you do not like in footnotes. Restore the hidden information, then we can continue.Ultramarine 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be nice. --Rikurzhen 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to restore the hidden information? Ultramarine 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to leave the version that Lulu put up for the time being while we edit this text on the talk page. There's no reason to fight over the footnotes as we intend to rewrite the entire thing anyway. Put your energy into the rewrite so we can replace the existing text, footnote and all. --Rikurzhen 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am satisfied that the very minimal description of world-wide scores is OK.  If we limit mention of Lynn to the few sentences that Rikurzhen used, it seems perfectly fair also only to indicate criticism of Lynn in a sentence, as is done right now.  It's really only presentation of those detailed numbers claiming Africans and Aborigines have IQs in the moderate mental retardation level that heightens my concern that criticism be fully presented.  If all we say is (roughly) "Lynn ranks these half dozen groups in this order"... well, I still don't believe Lynn's right, but it's also not the direct affront of telling readers that there are whole continents of idiots who can't learn to read or feed themselves. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: it's about the factor structure of abilities, not measurement accuracy. the text surrounding the wicherts papers should be restored or whathever. --Rikurzhen 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conversely, if factorial invariance is untenable, the between-group differences cannot be interpreted in terms of differences in the latent factors supposed to underlie the scores within a group or cohort."Ultramarine 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's about the factor structure of abilities, and about g, not about measurement error. the B-W gap could be a gap in Gq or Gf and/or whatever, or it could be a gap in g. this relates to spearman's hypothesis, as well as the question of whether the flynn effect is acting on g. --Rikurzhen 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to a more correct text.Ultramarine 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  measurement invariance <> no measurement errors 

message: If what we mean by trade book is 'not published by an academic press' or 'intended for a general audience', than books like the Blank Slate, the Mismeasure of Man, Guns Germs and Steele (both published by W. W. Norton & Company), and Lewontin Rose and Gould's Not in Our Genes (Pantheon), are all trade books.  However, it's not normal usage to refer to these books by this specific publishing term. If by tradebook we mean to imply "not a scientific work", we should take note that all these books, including Lynn's, are read by specialists and are reviewed and cited in scientific journals.  Is there any reason to diverge from standard usage when referring to these books on Wikipedia? --Nectar 06:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Rikurzhen 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually convinced that the "trade book" phrase should not be used.  But as to this notion of Lynn being cited in scientific journals: Rikurzhen notes that Google Scholar shows 33 hits on IQ&tWoN.  For context, I looked at two books by Richard Lewontin. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change is definitely an academic title; The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment is his most recent trade book, from 2000. I'm am about 98% certain that both titles have sold quite a bit less than IQ&tWoN, given the broad appeal of the latter in white supremecist circles. Lewontin's academic book is on Google scholar 1180 times, his trade book appears there 192 times. Which suggests that even as trade books go, IQ&tWoN is not treated seriously by scholars.  Stephen King horror novel Salem's Lot, FWIW, gets 38 Google scholar hits, so is somewhat more widely referenced academically than Lynn is. Lynn's newest book is not only not published by an academic publisher, but is not published by any reputable publisher. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your citation scoring metric is biased for more popular topics. There are far more scholars in terms of absolute numbers with a scholarly interest in genetics than race difference in IQ. You also do not have a control for the age of the publication, which is a lesser flaw. For a better comparison, look at Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth (2001; 4 citations), Race, evolution, and behavior (2000; 61 citations), Race, IQ and Jensen (1980; 15 citations), The G Factor: the Science of Mental Ability (1998; 544 citations), or even Handbook of intelligence (2000; 55 citations). --Rikurzhen 07:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weren't me that suggested Google Scholar hists lent legitimacy :-). (though I did take a minor effort to mention that Triple Helix is 2000, hence of similar age to IQatWoN). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Critiquing Google Scholars' numbers wasn't my point, only that we can't compare apples and oranges (so to speak). But this is back to the "is Lynn a reliable source?" question, which I hope we have put to rest. --Rikurzhen 07:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah... he's definitely not a reliable source, nor anything within a stone's throw of one.  I'm glad it's settled. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just an aside, but responding to "98% certain," the Triple Helix has an Amazon.com Sales Rank of #175,819, and IQatWoN has a rank of 382,178.  (The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, being published 25 years before these two, has a figure in a different category.)--Nectar 07:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding to Rikurzhen's figures above, I see The Scientific Study of General Intelligence (2003), edited by Helmuth Nyborg, has a chapter written by Lynn and refers to Lynn on 57 different pages (42 occuring in chapters by other authors), including reference to a cognitive ability study by Lynn conducted on Africans. I can't see how Lynn would be a reliable source for a well-reviewed survey of the field like this book, but not for this article.  Blanket condemnations, at the very least, are out of the question.--Nectar 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade book 

message: Tradebook (short for Trade Paperback Book) usually refers to the binding and size of the book. It is a Hardcover sized book with a thick paper cover. This is a publishing term, and has no direct relation to do with the academic value of a book. Universities routinely publish academic books in TPB format.
--Eraticus 05:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of TradeBook 

message: about 24 hours ago, Ultramarine tore thru the article with the edit summary DO NOT HIDE IN FOOTNOTES. i had no problem with the previous version that used footnotes, but from the present position, the reduced text i produced above seem superior in that it tells us the bare minimum while getting the point across -- as per summary style. we can go back to footnotes if that's the consensus, but let's figure that out on the talk page once and for all rather than switching back and forth. --Rikurzhen 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. You have made many subtle changes removing arguments for those advocating against a genetic explanation. Also, you just deleted the critical material from the footnotes. Ultramarine 08:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I made small changes for concision, but they do not change NPOV. We can talk about them in a separate section. (2) I didn't delete anything, I put what I thought had become the acting consensus version into the article. We can work on a more detailed version in the section above if you like. --Rikurzhen 08:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely true that Rikurzhen's removal of material was pretty selective in deleting only critical material from footnotes. The overall simplification of the main text of "world-wide scores" is definitely good. But I really can't see a harm in retaining the criticism in the footnote only. To Ultramarine: Why are you restoring a version of the footnote w/o my minor touchups (i.e. that says "the above" which no longer makes sense in the footnote comment; and that goes off in a digression about "criticizing the critics")?! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look guys, I used the reversion function to make my changes. I did not mean to delete anything in particular, just to reset things untill consensus could be reached on talk. If it's 2 for and 1 neutral on footnotes in that section, then let's have footnotes. You can retreive the original version from this page if you want to restore all of the material to footnotes. --Rikurzhen 08:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My "vote" is: (1) Use Rikhurzhen's much better, very brief, text for "world-wide scores"; (2) Leave the criticism of Lynn, but only in a footnote, not in the main text. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Your changes are constantly in favor of your pov and removed arguments. You have certainly deleted a long critical text previously found in the footnotes.Ultramarine 08:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusing me of bad faith is totally unhelpful. I've suggested a method for reaching consensus. --Rikurzhen 08:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did remove a long critical text from the footnotes. And why did your remove for example this which you had above agreed to include: " These genes do not follow the same distribution as that claimed for different racial groups." Ultramarine 08:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what happened to DO NOT HIDE IN FOOTNOTES 

message: this edit:
from top to bottom
# okay
# "biological research" to "this article"; reintroduces verbooten self-referential language; is less informative than the undisputed claim which it replaces; don't believe me? -- see the many many works by genetics since 2002 on this topic such as Risch, Bamshed, etc.
#:On the narrow point: there is nothing "verboten" about self-referential langauge of this sort.  WP:SELF is a prohibition on article referring to the fact they appear on WP (since they might not), it is not a prohibition on articles referring to themselves. In fact, terms like "this article" are explicitly permitted in WP:SELF#Neutral_references Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  41289695 to 41289166 

message: (outdenting for readability): A tangential point to this is our current sentence
It's been suggested that a conclusive answer may not be possible until intelligence is directly linked to specific genes. in Section 4.4. There are several things wrong with this pronouncement. (1) Who suggests this anyway? (2) Don't use contractions. (3) The quote suggest that this link has not yet been established. We obviously do not agree whether or not this link has been established in any meaningful way in 2005, and whether it is conclusive. But many would think so, which means that the quoted sentence is misleading. The easiest way to tackle this would be to completely remove it. It's not a very good sentence anyway. Arbor 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought that sentence may be able to be replaced with reference to Pinker's statement: "Advances in genetics and genomics will soon provide the ability to test hypotheses about group differences rigorously." Re (2), contractions seem fine to me; is there a problem with them?--Nectar 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "make it so..." :) --Rikurzhen 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genes and intelligence

message: My latest edit . Please do not just revert. Explain objections. I have tried to make the intro neutral with statement from each side.Ultramarine 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I haven't checked this article in a while, but I see Ultramarine removed this on 27 February:
This research is grounded in several controversial assumptions:    
-  *the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry.   
-  *intelligence is measurable (see psychometrics) and is dominated by a unitary general cognitive ability.
The reason for having this in the introduction originally was to help unfamiliar readers (i.e. no one editing this) grasp the basic concepts and controversies. Then it got moved from the intro and now removed altogether. I thought it was a pretty good overview of the major issues. I'll let you folks decide how to proceed, but I don't think this article does a very good job of presenting the controversy in its present form. Both "race" and "intelligence" need to be explained in a way so readers understand that the terms have disputed meanings, especially in terms of quantifiable/measurable characteristics. The summary above is not original research, but a succinct summation of the issues with this research, the key points that scholars dispute. 
Do what you will on this, but it feels way too wonky for a general article as it stands. I'm not saying dumb it down, but explain the academic dispute briefly, preferably in a sentence or two right up front to help readers new to the topic. Byeee! Jokestress 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Jokestress, thanks for stopping by again :) --Nectar 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of controversial assumptions 

message: The recent changes to the wording of the "race" section by Nectarflowed read quite nicely.  They keep the section more concise that it used to be, while presenting the two sides minus the ad hominem aspects.  Good job with that.  I still think the big diagram is better left in the nicely linked article.  Even though it has a really well written caption now (not sure if that was Nectarflowed, Rikurzhen or someone else who wrote it), it remains a digression that merely explains some semi-obscure details of the paragraph text (i.e. the multiloci stuff). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the image helps illustrate the fuzzy nature of ancestry groups, in the sense of different numbers of groups resulting at different levels of detail ('are there 3, 5, or 10 ancestry groups?'). (See, for example, Francisco Gil-White's discussion of the fuzzy set problem in discussions of race, including Vincent Sarich's opinion.)  This issue seems central to the general concept of biogeographic population subdivision (whether or not subdivision results in "races") and both sides of the debate reference the issue.--Nectar 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But reduced as much as you know have, the details are indiscernable.  It's just a vaguely colorful blob.  If you were to enlarge it to be readable, it would dominate the section, and spill into the next three subsections.  We now have a perfectly good related article that we currently link to, that discusses the chart in better detail... readers just need follow that link.  Actually, though, I like the latest caption (I think that's yours, Nectarflowed) quite a bit better than the previous iterations.  So it might make sense to copy that caption to its appropriate article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good rewording 

message: Ultramarine, since you were gone, here's the reason that was given for the removal of the operational definition paragaph: "unnecessary paragraph: population structure can be inferred at different levels of detail (6 clusters, 10 clusters etc.)"  See, for example, the graph located in the race section.
As general practice, if editors move paragraphs around, even adding or removing a spare line, the paragraph appears all red on the diff page, meaning other editors can't read the changes.--Nectar 12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again 

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: Removed Imagine if something like this war removed when commenting on research showing no adverse health effects from smoking: "In accord with the tax regulations governing nonprofit corporations, Pioneer does not fund individuals; under the law only other nonprofit organizations are appropriate grantees. As a consequence, many of the fund's awards go not to the researchers themselves but to the universities that employ them, a standard procedure for supporting work by academically based scientists. However, in addition to these awards to the universities where its grantees are based, Pioneer has also made a number of grants to other nonprofit organizations, essentially dummy corporations created solely to channel Pioneer's resources directly to a particular academic recipient—a mechanism apparently designed to circumvent the institution where the researcher is employed . 
:Although the fund typically gives away more than half a million dollars per year, there is no application form or set of guidelines. Instead an applicant merely submits "a letter containing a brief description of the nature of the research and the amount of the grant requested." There is no requirement for peer review of any kind; Pioneer's board of directors—two attorneys, two engineers, and an investment broker—decides, sometimes within a day, whether a particular research proposal merits funding. Once the grant has been made, there is no requirement for an interim or final report or even for an acknowledgment by a grantee that Pioneer has been the source of support, all atypical practices in comparison to other organizations that support scientific research ." Ultramarine 13:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These paragraphs in their present form are just many details about the fund's administrative functioning.  Is there a reason to discuss them, or, in other words, are the details in support of an argument or thesis?  Tucker's argument appears to be that "Pioneer's administrative procedures are as unusual as its charter."  However, a fund having unusual procedures is not itself relevant to this article.  An argument about those procedures, such as that they mean Pioneer is racist, would be relevant.--Nectar 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, imagine that this was research showing no adverse effects from smoking and that this research had been funded by the tobacco industry in this way. Obviously this should be pointed out.Ultramarine 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we have a (non-original) argument to report about these details beyond that they're "unusual," as Tucker argues, there's no reason (argument) to include them in the article.--Nectar 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 13

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)
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)
thread_title: 15

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)
thread_title: tag

message: I'm considering putting a vertical navigation box (see Template:Race and intelligence vertical navbox) on the main page for the article series, but the bell curve image at the top of the page is currently taking up the space.  Two options I'm considering are putting the vertical navbox next to the table of contents or trying to integrate it with the large bell curve image so it looks something like this:
Race and intelligence
Public controversy · Accusations of bias
Media portrayal · Utility of research
Average test score gaps among races
Culture only or partially genetic explanation?
References
Opinions?  Dd2 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertical navbox on main article page 

message: It is a bit hard for me to imagine why Indians (South Asians) have the same IQ as indigenous Americans when in fact Indian civilization was far more developed and advanced. In fact Indian civilization has always been ahead of the West until the end of the middle ages in science, mathematics, philosophy, ect. In fact the achievements of the South Asians probably were not caught up with until the 1700s, at least in the sciences and mathematics. We today even use the Hindu numerals. Where as many Native Americans lived like hunter-gatherers. Even the more advanced civilizations like the Aztec had no writing system or steel weapons. Steel was invented second in India far before the Europeans and indigenous Americans never invented it. Sophisticated writing systems have been in India thousands of years ago. In fact many historians think all Indo-European languages came from the Indian language Sanskrit. Hindus found the world was round and circled the sun thousands of years ago. They even figured the cyclical theory of the universe, a theory only to come very recently in science! I have a feeling malnutrition has a big effect on these IQ tests. I also wonder what people the IQ tests were done on. If they were done with malnutritioned Indians with no formal education it is obviously going to be lower. Can someone explain? Zachorious 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: South Asians living in Britain score much higher. --Rikurzhen 09:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it interesting that economic success within western industrialized society is assumed to be correlated with a universalizable construct of "intelligence." It seems class and race bias is inherent to the very definition of the Quotient. We are told that IQ is a predictor of socio-economic advancement, but that seems a rather circular argument given that the test is designed to test for cognitive abilities that are adaptive within the socio-economic environment of industrialized society. In such societies, particular skills involving mathematical ability and textual literacy are adaptive, so people with those skills are often considered intelligent. But one might simply say they have particular skills that are adaptive to their particular environment, skills which are not in themselves indicators of some kind of abstract, universal notion of intelligence. It would make a lot more sense if we stop treating these tests as tests of intelligence and started treating them as tests for one's socially adaptive cognitive abilities. That would go a long way in explaining the supposed intellectual discrepancy between minorities and majorities within a given culture. You might say that intelligence is the accumulated historical and cultural memory of a people, and therefore perceived differences in group intelligence may be attributed to the differences in how we value and preserve the cultural memory of different peoples. Gregor Samsa 18:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malnutrition And Intelligence

message: Can we get a footnote explaining what's being referred to here? 
*"These results are further supported when the artificial black-white dichotomy is supplemented with statistics for other ethnicities."
--Nectar 10:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: East Asians? --Rikurzhen 05:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other ethnicities and causes 

message: Is this statement sourced?..."even though affirmative action discriminates against East Asians in the admissions process (relative to Whites as well as to other minorities)" Is this all colleges or just the Ivy league? Sentence is ambiguous(sp).198.176.188.201 03:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The newly added statistics are for elite universities. I don't know about all colleges.--Nectar 05:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Check