Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 63

message: Paper chains:
# Race --> Genetics --> Cognitive ability --> IQ and test Scores gaps (genetics plays a role, there is a real difference)
# Race --> Social factors --> IQ and test Scores gaps (test scores do not represent cognitive ability)
# Race --> Social factors --> Cognitive ability --> IQ and test Scores gaps (Test scores represent cognitive ability, but are due to social factors)
# Race --> Social factors --> health --> Cognitive ability --> IQ and test Scores gaps (Test scores represent cognitive ability, but are due to social factors and non-genetic physical differences)
# Genetics --> Cognitive ability and 2,3 or 4, but for unrelated reasons.
# Some combination of any of these.
futurebird (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you are just critiquing the idea of the correlation itself, which is, of course, irrelevant to whether or not it meets the criteria for having its own Wikipedia article. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just trying to outline the possible positions. The question is what sources, if any describe the "full chain" -- what we want to avoid is making the chain ourselves-- and that's what the article seems to be doing at present.  futurebird (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I take Quinlan seriously by taking the correlation seriously.  But correlations are not causes.  This correlation is an effect and the effect needs to be explained, and it cannot be explained by the correlation itself - that is circular.  Futurebird's chains all illustrate the confusion that occurs when one thinks in circles, assuming that effects are causes and that correlations explain things, rather than need explaining.  In most studies of race and IQ race is self-identified and as Quinlan himself has agreed, it is not about genetics.  That means it is about environmental causes and the notable research explaining this correlation looks at socio-economic status.  A good encyclopedia article should (and according to our NPOV policy a good Wikipedia article must) foreground the notable views, which is why this article should be renamed "IQ and SES" and show how SES affects IQ scores (as I have stated repeatedly, we need another article on how genetics affects IQ scores; that article should foreground the notable research using twin studies) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's be careful here; the studies are not about genetics per se, and nor can they be reduced to genetics, but likewise, they're not about environment and social status either. You're still interchanging the correlation and its cause, which we need to avoid doing. To say that the article needs to take some predetermined stance on the causes of the correlation is incorrect. There is nothing circular about following the sources to where they lead; there is enough data (that is, raw, unbiased statistical evidence) that a correlation exists and those data are the basis for the current debate about racial differences in IQ that has been brought to the public's attention, and consequently, the basis for this article. Thus, I think all we need to do is present the statistical information (which itself, has little to say directly about the cause) in one section and then in the next section we should discuss the various interpretations of these data. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure what you mean by per se as the twin studies are all about calculating heritability which is an important part of population genetics. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have to explain the race and IQ correlation, even if spurious.  It has received enough attention in the media to merit mention, even if it is to show that it is not robust.  Incorrect statements that receive attention are notable. Brusegadi (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you responding to me or to Quinlan?  I do not understand what you mean when you say I still have to explain the correlation.  It is a non-sequitor.  Didn't you read what I just wrote, which is all about how to explain it? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 04:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that SES and genetic stuff can be placed in one.  We just have to build it properly.  It is important to clear up any possible misconseption.  That is, the reader should know what is public discourse (BS) and what is academic discourse.  I thought you wanted to stick to SES too much, I dont think we have to do that as long as we show that it is the predominant stuff. Brusegadi (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "I thought you wanted to stick to SES too much." Where did I ever say that?  Please tell me what you were responding to.  Besides, what is "too much?" You are missing my point: I want to stick to our NPOV policy which says that we include notable views and I want to stick to notable views not fringe ones.  The Evolution article is not bogged down with Creationist views.  The Physics article is not bogged down with Ptolemaic astronomy.  Likewise this article should focus on notable scholarly views and yes, they exist.  This is not "too much."  However, like others I disagree with you that SES and genetics should go in one article.  i am calling not for a POV fork but a content fork (because specialists in each scholarly field accept the findings of the other scholarly field).  The scholarly work on twin studies and on SES are actually two distinct bodies of literature and to do justice to either one would bog this article down and make it too long.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that "I thought you wanted to stick to SES too much" is obviously not something you said.  So, "where did I ever say that?" is rather confrontational.  This page gets too heated up for my taste so I try to stay out.  My point is that this link between race and intelligence exists in the minds of many, and it is notable enough to be controversial in the public arena, so we have to deal with it.  In my eyes, the best way to deal with it is to treat it along with what the academics have to say.  There is an article on creationism, and it is in great part dedicated to showing its BS, we should do the same. Brusegadi (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to have wounded your feelings.  You misrepresented me and I do not like being misrepresented, especially when I am trying to work towards a consensus.  I have made it explicitly clear that I support an article on genetic causes of IQ variation, as well as some way for Wikipedia to cover the popular (cultural and poplitical) debates over race and IQ.  You and I may disagree over the best way to do it, but please do not suggest I have taken a position I have not taken.  You are quite correct that we have an article on Creationism.  I think it is important to note that Creationism is dealt with in a different article than Evolution.  Furthermore, there is a third article on the Creation-evolution controversy.  I agree with you that this is a model worth following e.g. articles on scientific research on IQ variation, some discussion of some of this stuff, like Watson's comment, in the article on racism, and more specific and broader coverage in an article on the controversy over racial inequalities in the US (or elsewhere). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can make one important distinction here, SLR, is that twin studies are very important in assessing the heritability of IQ within a group (such as between pairs of identical twins), but it doesn't allow us to generalize to between-group heritability (such as between racial or ehtnic groups). Thus, twin studies have only a very limited ability to explain the possible causes of the racial IQ test score gap.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Read this wikipedia section and note that the claims you make about there being virtual unanimity in favour of your assertions (which you say should be the basis of any article on this subject) are false. You need to sit down and work with other editors Rubinstein, and work towards an article that represents the current state of the research field, by describing the findings and then offering the various competing explanations for them in a NPOV way. Rather that your current MO, which seems to be to make up your own languauge and force everybody else to use it. Lobojo (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It sounds like It is clear that you did not read Alun's response to you in the antepenultimate section, nor that you understood what I just wrote.  Unlike you, my method for researching a Wikipedia article is not just to read other Wikipedia articles.  You do not seem to know much about anything relevant to this article and have nothing to contribute. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really are insufferably obnoxious and arrogant. Please address the substance of my point instead of the ad-hom. Lobojo (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paper chains

message: Noting , again, why don't we nix all these silly semantic arguments which have ruined what was once a good article, and have an article called Populations and IQ or Ethnic groups and IQ or some such. Then we can get down to the business of describing the difference ans listing the explanations. Lobojo (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed above, and no consensus has been reached. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I agree with these suggestions but they are constructive and that at least is a big step in the right direction.  We are still discussing these matters and I prefer the titles Genetics and IQ and Socio-Economic Status and IQ but it can't hurt to have a couple of other onstructive proposals on the table. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: WM makes a good point above in mentioning that a topic is notable and thus valid for inclusion at WP if it is noticed in credible sources.  I would expand on that by saying that we should entitle our article based on the most notable name for the topic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)Let's be clear about an important distinction: you and Quinlan are discussing what constitutes a notable topic for an encyclopedia article.  I originally introduced the term "notable" in the context of our NPOV policy, which addresses not what constitutes a worthy topic for an encyclopedia article, but what constitutes a view that must be included in the article.  There are serious scientific debates about the variation in IQ score and the notable views in these debates center around research on genetic explanations and research on environmental (SES) explanations, and these are the views that should be highlighted in any article on the scientific research into variation in IQ scores.  Murray and Quinlan seem more interested in the political and media debates over race and IQ and I have no objection to an article that covers these discussions, but I believe that these discussions are subsets of more general political and cultural debates about race in the United States and should be in an article with that title. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The theories about the causes for variation in IQ are only notable in the context of the media coverage of race and IQ. Moreover, the media coverage of race and IQ merits a discussion of its causes (after the phenomenon itself has been discussed), as these are also part of the ongoing public debate. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "The theories about the causes for variation in IQ are only notable in the context of the media coverage of race and IQ" you cannot possible believe this - do you hold this standard to other articles?  Are the only notable sources for an article on evolution ones that appear in the media?  Are the only notable sources for an article on string theory those that appear in the media?  Are the only notable sources for an article on Plautus those that appear in the media?  Do you really believe that wikipedia should not have articles on areas of scientific research, and that those articles should not highliht notable scientific research?  You seem very uncompromising: I have agreed with you that there is a place in Wilkipedia for topics of political and cultural debate.  But you refuse to accept my point that there is also a place in Wikipedia for articles on scientific research?  What would our Evolution article look like if the threshold for notable sources was notability in the media? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, yeah, that's not what I meant to say; I just meant that even an article motivated by the popular debate requires a discussion of the causes, i.e. the theories on IQ variance, but as they relate to race, not simply SES. Apologies for that one. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh well, I must have missed that in the 500,000words on 30 archive pages! Lobojo (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it would be original synthesis to call it race and intelligence controversy, so I'm not interested in pursuing that idea. Also, I don't think an article about the controversy itself is jutsifiable. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Ideas 

message: Horribly long name, but if we have an article on the SES theory we could have one on this one too. Or would it be a POV fork? We could treat it in the same way as other fringe theories. The word "Hereditarian" has good currency and it might work better than having a "controversy" article.  Thoughts?
I'm saying to have this article instead of "race and intelligence controversies" then have a (large) section of this article that deals with controversy. All of the controversies have been about these theories anyway. futurebird (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we can do better, how about Racial theories on the test score gap and their historical relationship to the eugenics movement of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Now that's a good title. Alun (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! futurebird (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hereditarian theories of racial difference should be a topic in the article on Scientific racism, which disucsses fringe theories that are plitically notable.  Current science should be in an article called something like Genetics and IQ scores which would draw on a whole oher body of scientific research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While certainly done in good faith, your assumptions are misleading you in several ways: first, you seem to conceive of "races" as discrete, separate subpopulations, akin to subspecies. While this is true with many other species, "races" in  the human species don't differ by that much. Also, while intelligence has been shown to  be heritable within groups (twin studies), its heritability between groups (i.e. between races) isn't supported by any direct evidence so far. Finally, you assume that "race A" and "race B" started out with differing levels of intelligence. If we instead assume that we are all descendants from the same small group of proto-humans a few hundreds thousand years ago, there is no good reason to assume there ever was a difference in intelligence between "race A" and "race B", and the mechanism you suggest wouldn't generate a difference in intelligence between races per se. And lastly,we should be writing articles based on the references that exist, rather than build an article to suit our preconceptions which you come across as saying, even thought this may not have been your intent.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US I think more people believe in creationism than evoloution... Also, even if there is a genetic difference in intelligence between groups, you still need to show that the difference is making the gap in test scores wider. For all we know it could be making the gap  smaller.  futurebird (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC) Welcome to the discussion Aron.Foster.  Since you are a newcomer you have missed much discussion.  I am not sure what you mean when you say that people assume "the SES stance is a foregone conclusion."  Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  It is not a foregone conclusion that SES is a cause for variation in IQ score, it is a fact that a good deal of the research on variation in IQ scores studies socio-economic factors.  Since a good deal of scientific research explores this, i.e. it is represented in notable sources, Wikipedia must provide an account of this research.  Wikipedia does not claim that the findings of these scholars is true, it only claims that it is true that a group of scholars have reached certain findings.  Moreover, I assure you that no one has belittled the hereditarian stance.  The question is, what is the hereditarian stance?  As Ramdfrake points out, heritability applies only to variation within a population, and never between populations - this is an uncontroversial statement, it is how evolutionary scientists and population geneticists define the term.  It is no more controversial than saying that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is \Delta x \Delta p   \ge \frac{\hbar}{2} .  Here is my main point, which I have argued consistently and which I believe Ramdrake, Alun, Futurebird, and others support at least in some form: good articles on scientific topics ought to provide an accurate account of any major debte or trends in research.  One major explanation for variation in IQ scores is genetic.  An article on this research must be organized around the most notable and mainstream views on the matter - it should include all notable views, but i think that the major notable views should be the principle factor in the organization and presentation of the article.  Virtually all scientific research on the genetic determinants of variation in IQ scores is based on twin studies and above (perhaps now in archived talk) I provided a bibliography of major (i.e. from major peer-reviewed journal journals, and which are frequently cited) articles.  These studies indicate an ongoing debate between scientists who measure the heritability of intelligence at .40, and others who measure it at between .60 and .70.  In addition to these contrasting calculations, there is a debate over the effects of of the shared prenatal environment - some argue that identical blood supply should lead to greater similarities between monochoriatic twins than dichorionic twins; others argue that competition for blood supply should lead to greater differences between monochorionic twins than dichorionic twins.  I think we need to have a good article that provides a clear account of this research and these controversies.  But scientists who study the genetic influence on variation in IQ also acknolwedge that in addition to genetic causes, there are also environmental (effectively, SES) causes. Although scientists conducting research on these different causes agree that both innate (genetic) and exogenous (environmental) factors play a role in variation in IQ scores, the scientists who conduct this research come from different academic disciplines and really contribute to two distinct bodies of literature.  There has been so much published on genetic and environmental causes that no good article can provide a good account of the research and debates in both bodies of literature.  Therefore, I advocate two articles, one covering the literature on the genetic caues, and one on the environmental causes.  Since these are not competeing theories (at least, not among the scientists doing the actual research - just as gravity and inertia together account for the orbits of the planets, two very different causes modeled by two very different theoretical approaches combine, rather than compete, to explain the observed effects) this is not a POV fork but a content fork.  I have been forwarding this proposal for months and as far as i can tell no one has objected to my call for an article to cover the literature on twin-studies that provides the basis for calculations for the heritability of IQ.  So I really fail to see anyone belittling attention to research on the genetic component.  (inter alia, I do see some people who seem to think that genetic and SES explanations are competing or even mutually exclusive.  I know of no notable scientific article that makes this claim so I think it indicaes a misunderstanding of, or unfamiliarity with, the mainstream scientific research and to present these two bodies of research as competing in a Wikipedia article would violate NOR.  I do acknowledge that the popular media often presentes these two views as competing which is why I think that this particular view is accurately characterized as a cultural or political phenomenon and should be addressed in another article on the politics of race in America). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about genetic differences between racial groups in that comment, btw. futurebird (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Without meaning to speak for Futurebird, i would just add to her comment that there are certain people (and their books) that are - at least among scientists - fringe theories that thus fail to meet the notability standard in our NPOV policy, Rushton being a premier example.  I agree with Futurebird that we need not exclude him from Wikipedia merely because his views are frings among scientists - we can present them via an article on him or his books (we have many articles that do this e.g. Guns, Germs and Steel (i just mean, presenting someone's views via an article on his or her book is not in and of itself a judgement on the veracity of the views of the book).  As best I can tell, the counter-argument is that Rushton's views are not fringe they are notable, but it is evident to me that if his views are in any way notable it is not within scientific discussions but rather in popular discussions e.g. the mass media 9this is certainly the case with Murry and Hernstein's The Bell Curve).  Again I tend to favor Futurebird's approach of covering these views in articles on the books (like we do for Guns, Germs, and Steel).  An alternative would be to have an article on popular debates concerning race in America - I am not sure what the best title would be, but my point is simply that there are some views that are notable for political or cultural reasons that are not notable in scientific discussions.  As I pointed out earlier, we have an article on Evolution.  Creationism and Intelligent Design are most definitely "notable" ib you judge by newspaper articles and court cases ... but they are just not notable in scientific debates.  That is why they are given practically no space in the article on evolution.  Instead, there is an article on creationism, and another article on the creationism-evolution controversy which is presented as a political and cultural controversy, not a scientific one.  I think this is a model we should follow, and it is why I think there is no room for a discussion of Rushton or Murry/Hernstein's views in the articles on scientific discussions of variation in IQ.  This is not because i am "anti-hereditarian" - I think we ought to have an article on genetics and IQ drawing on the vast literature on twin studies, and an article on SES and IQ drawing on a whole other and equally if not more vast literature on SES.  I just think Rushton and M/H's views don't belong in those articles because they are not notable sources in those scientific debates.  As to your question, why hasn't the article been split like this before?  Well, you need to ask people who are opposed to Futurebird's or my proposals.  But one obvious answer is that this is a controversial topic and some people feel very strongly about it.  Frankly - and I do not say this with any disrespect to anyone here - Wikipedia has a great diversity of contributors.  Many people do not have access to libraries with subscriptions to journals like The Lancet, Cognition, Behavior Genetics, Twin Research and Human Genetics, or Nature.  They do however have access to popular media and to the web, and I think this means that they are far more familiar with popular debates (which I believe are rooted in cultural and political debates) (also I do not think I am alone in believing that the popular media prefers to report on socially or politically controvesial views over technically complex scientific research) than with debates among active researchers.  And you know, people write about what they are most familiar with.  Anyway, I am just speculating about how to answer your question. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: off topic: I'm a grad student in math too. I'd give you a longer answer. But, I have finals next week. futurebird (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC) Well, with all due respect, if you do not mind some advice i would say that if you want to know what scientists think of Rushton or Murray and Hernstein, you should see how their books have been reviewed in the major journals.  Most research in human evolution and population genetics is done by anthropologists - see if their books have been reviewed in the major journals, American Anthropologist and Current Anthropology and more specialized journals, American Journal of Physical Anthropology and Annals of Human Genetics.  If they do not review the books at all, well, that silence itself would speak volumes.  However, i would think that at least one of these journals has reviewed at least one of their books and I bet that their reviews will not focus on who funded them ... unless the science is considered so fringe that reviewers invoke the funding sources to explain the nature of the bias (if you do not know, one way that scientific researchers accrue prestige is by receiving highly competitive research grants from highly competitive sources e.g. the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health - these are the most notable, but there are of course others.  Some private foundations - like MacArthur - are also very very very well-considered.  I know this sounds pretentious or snobbish but scientists are pretty competiive and money and prestige go hand in hand.  Scientists are impressed by someone who can get funding from the NSF (or its UK or Canadian or whatever equivalent).  They are correspondingly skeptical of someone who cannot get funding from the NSF or an equally prestigious foundation.  I think the reasoning goes like this (again, I admit it is snobbish): Rushton needs to get funding from the Pioneer fund because he cannot get funding from Canadian equivalent of the NSF.  He cannot get funding from NSF because he is not good enough to compete at that level.  And so on.  Of course, there are other factors: the Pioneer Fund was founded with a fairly explicit racist agenca.  But more salient is the fact that Rushton heads the Pioneer Fund meaning - it is not that hard for him to get a grant from that foundation.  I am trying to make two points.  One is that Western scientists, like most Westerners, are competitive and respect people who win difficult competitions more than people who win easy competitions.  For better or worse this is one reason why the source of funding matters.  But i have a second point: these foundations really are important mechanisms for policing the quality of the science.  I am not saying that they are perfect mechanisms, they are not, I am only saying that the source of funding for research is not arbitrary or unrelated to the quality of the science.  NSF is so competitive because they seek to fund only the most rigorous research proposed by the best qualified researchers.  To get a grant from the NSF means that a panel of very prestigious scientists read your proposal (and the proposals are very detailed) and judged it to be original, rigorous, and significant.  I would agree with you that it is lazy to dismiss Rushton's work because he did not get funding from NSF (rather, the Canadian equivalent).  Making such a claim is using "rejected by NSF" as shorthand for what would be a much longer explanation of what is bad about the science.  My point is, if (assuming Rushton actually did apply to the Canadian equivalent of the NSF) you read the reviewer's comments that explained why his proposal was rejected, you would be reading a detailed explanation fo what is wrong with his science.  Now, we editors of Wikipedia do not have access to those reviews (they are confidential though perhaps one could petition for them under the FOI act).  But it would not be hard for a trained geneticist to reconstruct the rationale for rejecting his proposal.  I am just saying that (1) such a reconstruction would in fact be a detailed explanation of what is wrong with his science and (2) it would take a while to write that reconstruction and it saves time - like I said, laziness - just to say "NSF rejected his proposal.  But for scientists, just knowing that means that his science didn't cut the mustard.  Anyway, if you can find reviews of his books or the Bell Curve in the journals I mentioned, you will probably find the substantive critiques you are looking for. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Try this: Racialism and Racist Agendas: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, J. Philippe Rushton. Review author[s]: C. Loring Brace American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 98, No. 1. (Mar., 1996), pp. 176-177. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And this: Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective. By J. Philippe Rushton. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 1995. 334 pp. . $34.95 (cloth) American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 98, Issue 1, Date: September 1995, Pages: 91-94 John H. Relethford Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, if you want a crash-course on the topic, read this book: Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms. Alexander Alland Jr. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. 219 pp. - it specifically goes into detail on the difference between good and bad science. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think you are lazy!  I think you take this topic seriously and i appreciate your candor.  i believe that if you read these two book reviews and Alland's book (which was very well-reviewed, and is fairly accessible) you will understand why so many consider Rushton to be a pseudoscientist (caveat: his training was in social psychology and I have no reason to question the research he did for which he was trained; it is only his publication on topics outside of his field of expertise - genetics and evolution - that I consider him a pseudoscientist). I grant that the book by Alland will take you a few days but if you are serious about this topic as you seem to be, I am sure you will find it very informative and enjoyable, and it will be well worth your while. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thus proving my point about the systematic bias in Wikipedia owing to the fact that a large number of contributors (if not a majority) do not have access to good libraries.  Does the military not have electronic subscriptions to major journals through J-stor?  Or a good inter-library loan system?  Be that as it may, I would not expect you to subscribe to these journals!  If you want to e-mail me at slrubenstein dot yahoo dot com I can send you pdfs of the book reviews.  Yes, I am an anthropologist, but not a physical anthropologist (and it is they who are the real experts on human evolution and population genetics).  For what it is worth, I think sociologists have done the best research on SES factors.  Those psychologists who are specifically trained are indeed the best experts in IQ testing specifically; psychologists and neuropsychologists on human cognition more generally.  From what I have read, few psychologists have expertise in human evolution or genetics, and it is usually when psychologists who may well be very competent scholars in their own areas of expertise begin making arguments involving genetics and evolution that they are accused of bad or pseudo-science.  The best research on the heritability of intelligence comes from population geneticists either from physical anthropology or evolutionary biology.  AJPA is the top journal in physical anthropology, see also Behavior Genetics and Nature.  For psychology, the journals Cognition, and Applied Psychology.  The top journals in sociology are American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review.  I am not sure what is available on-line, but I hope you have access to a good library or at least a library with a good inter-library loan service and reference librarian. If you read the Alland book I personally would like to know what you think of it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Aron. I got hold of a second hand copy of "Race and IQ" edited by Ashley Montague from Amazon for just a couple of quid. This contains a lot of very good essays by very well respected scientists. I was pleased with my copy, it' an old copy from Leeds University library, and knowing how hard UK university students work, I was unsurprised to find that the volume is like new!!! Alun (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hereditarian theories of racial differences in intelligence]]

message: Since everyone is still talking about Rushton, here is a link to his book:  
Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective; 2nd Special Abridged Edition. --Jagz (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Race, Evolution, and Behavior]]