Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 57

message: NitroMed's BiDil.
http://investors.nitromed.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130535&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=723543&highlight=
More on DiBil on wiki is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiDil
Archiving this section, leaving the two links above. Material is relevant to other articles, not particularly relevant to this one. P0M 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race & genetics

message: One problem I see with race research is the following. Basically, a biological phenomenon (distribution of genes, which may or may not differ between groups) is under study. However, as far as I can see, no study of race employs a biological definition of race in its selection of subjects. This not to say that there are no biological definitions of race or that such definitions are not given in the articles in which race research is published. The fact is that subjects are assigned to "race" categories based on criteria other than biology, basically how a subject defines herself/himself. In the US, this usually means that anyone who has some ancestry tracing back to sub-Saharan Africa is being defined as an African-American, even though biologically speaking his African ancestry may be far less than 50%. The opposite is not true. I do not see how research into a biological phenomenon using non-biological definitions can lead to valid results.
Crusio 11:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: African-Americans (selected by self-identification) have been found to average approximately 80% sub-Saharan African ancestry in genetic studies.  Studies are always done on groups of subjects, not individual subjects, so as long as the sample is large enough, this is not a significant concern.24.113.82.222 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Did we not make a silent surrender on that score? It seems to me that we are not "permitted" to put two and two together if four ends up disputing the validity of [race] but we are "permitted" to put two and two together if four ends up supporting the validity of [race] and/or its connection to intelligence. P0M 06:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point that Futurebird raised is still valid. If there is no clear definition of the word "race" associated with an assertion that "race matters" or that "race doesn't matter" with regard to intelligence, then there is no clear statement and we are deceiving people by implying that it is clear and they ought to be able to figure it out somehow. P0M 05:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is about biology 

message: talk pages shouldn't be much longer than 35kb - I just did some archiving but this page is too long.  I will archive again soon, so make sure that anything on the page that is still unresolved gets resolved soon, thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I am a biologist, physical or social/cultural anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, or anything similar, so don't go off and start bashing me or anything.
However, recently I've read parts of Race: The Reality of Human Differences by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele. I only have read parts of it because the book, as a whole, was a bore, but that's a different story. Anyways, the authors state in the book that race and skull capacity is linked, and that this assumption has been proven by recent MRI studies of "thousands of skulls." The only problem being is that they didn't cite their source.
So I was wondering if anyone could possibly provide a primary source for this information... It would be helpful and could add to this article. On the other hand, I'm not even sure if such a study with "thousands of skulls" has been conducted or not and if the authors were just saying something on a whim.
Lastly, if you decide to contribute to this comment, I'd be flabbergasted, but please don't post some old 19th century study that 'proves' racial skull differences or the study by Stephen Jay Gould proving otherwise. I'm just wondering if such a study using MRIs in the recent past has been conducted and if skull capacity and race has been linked in it. Encrypted Soldier 15:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only MRI scan study that I am aware of that has black and white samples for comparison is Harvey, Persaud, Ron, Baker and Murray (1994). Abstract here .  Discussed here “For example, using MRI technology, Harvey, Persaud, Ron, Baker, and Murray (1994) found that 
41 Blacks in Britain averaged a smaller brain volume than did 67 British Whites”. It seems doubtful that the studies of thousands of skulls that they refer to are MRI Scan studies, more likely measurements of the cranial capacity of empty skulls. I might be wrong though. Hope that helps. Romper 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race and skull capacity? 

message: Why it was removed in favor of the only black and white graph? A few time ago I saw that it was under discussion, but I hadn't have enough time to read and understand the points right. I recall reading the following two points: Hispanics are not quite a "race" and that the graph is not a exact copy of a graph found in any publication, so that would be original research. 
I'd answer that, despite of Hispanics not being scientifically considerable a race of their own, they may be under the social concept of race, and even if not, comparisons of IQ scores between "just ethnic" groups would still be valuable to the issue of racial differences on intelligence. The exclusion seems to me, at first, an attempt of sweeping under the carpet the comparatively close IQ scores between Hispanics (nearly whites, genetically) and black people, at the same time that it puts the white scores at the top, as superior Asian IQ scores are not shown at the same time. (Additionally to the "Hispanics are not a biological race" argument, one could yet argue that neither "blacks" nor "African americans" are a statistically representative sample of all black-skinned or African-black populations, and ponder whether the data presented on the article refer more to the smaller sample, being thus more akin to "Hispanic" than to a true biological race)  
As for being original research, as long as the data shown in the composite graph is not incorrect, i.e., the standards of IQ measures are considerably the same, there are not distortion of any kinds, it does not seems to be original research anymore that the text written for article is. It's just a graphical representation of data collected from referred sources, rather than textual. Extremophile 22:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IQ graph with hispanics and asians along with black and white 

message: These articles are over-reliant on input from a few controversial scholars. Any article that has a reference to people like Rushton or anyone connected with the pioneer fund immediately looses a lot of credibility. While their research may be peer reviewed, their very controversial and inflammatory nature is enough to turn many away. I would definitely prefer if all their references are removed from this series of articles and studies from more sincere and objective researchers who have no agenda other than to seek the truth are used.Muntuwandi 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus at the American Psychological Association is that a partly genetic hypothesis is as of now, inadequate in explaining differences in IQ among population groups.[59] (which may or may not be true)
My quibble is solely with the weak sourcing. This fellow titles his article "http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-The-view-of-the-American-Psychological-Association-1120.html 
Who is he? What are his credentials? Why is he speaking for the APA? Is this a peer-reviewed article? How does anyone know he is a psychologist, or that he even exists? 
Google has two references to ( "Robert Artmann" psychologist ), both linking to this set of pages on his Web site. Why is this on Wikipedia? Where are the standards? What are the proofs? 
The APA summary I linked to earlier is a verifiable source. This is not. Skywriter 04:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: controversial scholars

message: I've been away for a bit, so can someone fill me in on why this article is locked again? futurebird 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locked

message: savant syndrom does not exist. not all savants are autistics. and it is "idiot savants" that seems to e implied here. being 'savant' simply means your brilliant in something or other, it is not per se a handicap at all· Lygophile has spoken 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Savant Syndrome" 

message: it looks like original research it is not original research it is extraneous data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunke (talk • contribs) 10:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research 

message: This article should be divided into Genetics as a cause of differences and Genetics not as a cause of differences.  The History section makes a strong suggestion that racial differences in IQ are caused by socioeconomic development or prejudices, and not genetics.
:It used to be that way. It was a mess and many, many editors complained it looked too POV. So, we tried taking a step back to put the question of race and intelligence in a more historically and sociologically complete context.--Ramdrake 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't differentiate between statistics and viewpoints 

message: Another editor has removed the collective statement on intelligence originally published in the Wall Street journal by Gottfredson et al. While I will personnally not lament its disappearance, I want to make sure it is for the right reasons. The motive claims something about the "famously right wing views of the Wall Street Journal". It should be noted that the authors of the statement aren't writers for the WSJ: they are psychologists, intelligence researchers in their own right, although most of the signatories are Pioneer Fund fundies (which spells another kind of bias altogether). So, I just want to make clear that what is in that article cannot be labeled "right wing views of the WSJ", or "nothing approaching fact or science" (it is written by respected scientists), although one label that can certainly be applied is that of "highly biased science". Like I said, I'm not contesting the removal of this statement; I'm just trying to set the record straight on why it's not the most NPOV reference to have here.--Ramdrake 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the collective statement of Gottfredson et al. 

message: There is a section called IQ with outstanding requests for citations since April. I will wait one week for citations to be placed before considering that entire section subject for removal. Failure to provide proper sources is evidence of original research and in an article as long and filled with controversy as this, there has been more than sufficient time to provide proper referencing. Skywriter 04:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These claims are source in reference 47 in the immediately preceding sentence. If you read the reference, it even says so. No need to add further citations or to remove the statements.--Ramdrake 11:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced claims

message: Why is the following reference here? Who is the writer of http://www.iq-tests.eu ? and why should anyone trust him?
(This is the second time this question about this source has been raised.)
Consensus at the American Psychological Association is that a partly genetic hypothesis is as of now, inadequate in explaining differences in IQ among population groups.{http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-The-view-of-the-American-Psychological-Association-1120.htmlSkywriter 13:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the link with one to the consensus statement itself. That should look better.--Ramdrake 13:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Badly sourced claims

message: Why does this continue to be sourced to this blatantly racist web site that distorts and edits the report of the American Psychological Association and also places inflammatory headline on the APA report?
Where is the sense of decency, the sense of intellectual honesty in the writing of this article? 
While some psychologists today still regard g as the most fundamental measure of intelligence, others prefer to emphasize the distinctive profile of strengths and weaknesses present in each person's performance on different aspects of IQ tests. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html APA Task Force Report, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" Skywriter 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am putting in an alternative URL, pointing to a legitimate university site (University of Connecticut). Please let me know where this URL is still present in this article so that I may change it to the more appropriate one I just mentioned. Also, on a side note, I would suggest you try to make your interventions less passionate and more to the point.--Ramdrake 13:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, please make up your mind: do you want to try and improve this article, or just bitch about it?--Ramdrake 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your one-week ultimatum has already been addressed above regarding the "IQ" section. The link to the APA article I found myself when you objected to the first one (even though the alternate link contains the exact same text, save for the banner and a couple other extraneous insignificant differences). What you have done is to prompt others to correct the errors you saw, many of which were minor. What you need to do in the future is start behaving in a civil manner and remind yourself that editors are usually working in good faith. While all suggestions to improve the article are welcome, implying that the article so far is "trash" is demeaning to the other editors who preceded you, and certainly uncivil. Also, attributing to yourself and yourself only the merit of the current improvements being done on the article is a matter of some exaggeration. I very strongly suggest you change your tone if you want the continued collaboration of other editors.--Ramdrake 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just gave you the reference twice. Take time enough to go through it, and let me know what you think, please.--Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I have a deal for you: you stop being so derogatory of opinions you don't agree with, and express them politely, and I'll stop lecturing you. That suits me.--Ramdrake 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do support making changes to the article with a deemphasis on controversial theories of rushton, murray, jensen etc. However I hope that the article can remain encyclopedic with a good structure. Muntuwandi 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuation of sourcing to racially motivated bad actors

message: I have been going through the article to see where it does and does not make sense. I submit the following paragraph for deletion because it is junk. There is no standard for links here, and I find that weighing this article down heavily. 
My earlier comments concerning the unscientific nature of the presentation crop up again here where non-peer reviewed rants are recommended with equal vigor as peer-reviewed articles.
Rants offer the reader no help whatsoever. This 67-page rant complaining about a 4-minute TV spot that ran in 1994 by the late Peter Jennings is enough to send any casual or erudite reader running in terror from this article. 
I therefore propose that it be deleted for cause. That cause is that it sheds no light and it is not peer-reviewed. I further propose that it be deleted because it lacks focus, and the lack of focus is the central weakness of this Wikipedia article. Here is what this article currently states:
:Robert A. Gordon, a Pioneer Fund media critic writes that ranking group averages "high" to "low" is not the same things as moral ranking from "good" to "bad" or an overall ranking of "superior" to "inferior". ref Some researchers explicitly reject the latter terms as inaccurately global in connotation and insensitive, but the terms are used by some critics AYref|Gordon|1997b, http://www.pioneerfund.org/Gordon.pdf p. 42)./ref But not all scholars agree that the research has such benign motives. For example, Robert Sternberg writes that race intelligence research that focuses on a genetic cause for the gap is attempting to show that one group is inferior to another group. refThere are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005) Robert Sternberg /ref (this ends the section that as it currently appears in the article ). notice how the Sternberg reference is missing a link or even a citation to the scholarly journal in which it appeared(!) 
The article, "There Are No Public-Policy Implications A Reply to Rushton and Jensen", by Robert J. Sternberg of Yale University appeared in "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law" 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 295–301, and I have found this link for it: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Sternberg-commentary-on-30years.pdf
which I will add to the article in good time. 
So the proposal here is to delete the 67-page Gordon rant because it is a non-peer reviewed diatribe concerning media coverage, and it sheds no light on the subject of this article. Does anyone disagree? Skywriter 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to delete unfocused rant

message: I have been away from the editing of this article for several days due to work responsibilities, etc. The last time I look at it I was disheartened by its rather chaotic nature. Articles can turn chaotic when many people are inserting improvements and deleting other things without necessarily maintaining a clear overview of the whole thing.
To give a simile, I would say that this article could be compared to a TV documentary of the tobacco industry that resulted when a reporter put a TV camera on his helmet, went around and looked at some tobacco farms, look at the road to the factory, walked through the factory without quite knowing where he was going, talked to the factory manager, the cancer researchers, the legislators, etc., etc. Then, without editing, they just played the thing on TV.  
In order to make a documentary that will allow outsiders to understand a phenomenon, the documentarian has to have an overview of the phenomenon and that requires having some kind of an understanding of that phenomenon. (As long as the documentarian doesn't try to come across as the great expert, the better the documentarians understand their subjects the better they can help other people understand them.)
A documentarian is not someone who takes either the position of the omniscient scientist who tells us how the Universe (or the nicotine) actually works, nor is the documentarian someone who strives to further one side or another of any contest. Documentarians are supposed to tell the rest of us the truth about what the scientists say, what the oppositions are between scientists and marketers, etc.
So we need to tell the truth, but we are not in the position of telling people what "the truth about race and intelligence" is. I have a plan for how we can do that job in a better, more compact way, but that is for later. P0M 04:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With its clean, structured look, Race_and_genetics is appealing and does not have the feel of POV pounding.Skywriter 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: if the groups can be identified, only then can a hypothesis be made.Muntuwandi 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not clear on what you are talking about. What are required are studies (many of which have appeared in various incarnations of this article), and, if possible, predictions made from them.  Linnaeus had clear [races] in mind, and he had clear ideas on the levels of intelligence, behavioral and ethical characteristics associated with each, etc. Were there any studies made that accurately measured people who would fit in with his definitions of the [races]? I doubt it. However, there are many studies based on self-reported [race] in the U.S. I seem to remember that g has been measured for self-reported [races] in the British Isles, and that the results differed from U.S. results. Anyway, I'm not trying to make hypotheses. I'm trying to identify the theories and/or hypotheses and the research results already reported. P0M 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You're ignoring the fact the overwhelming majority of people in the world - asians and caucasians - are descended from the individual responsible for Haplogroup K, and very few sub-saharan africans are descended from him.  As I see it, there are two primary subspecies of humans, those before Haplogroup K (Y-DNA), and those descended from him.  This satisfies the monophyletic clade standard for objective taxonomy of population.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a citation or two to articles that discuss Haplogroup K, please. There is only one extant subspecies of humans, but if you want to go with infra-subspecific groupings and if you look at the most large-granule split on haplogroups it does break down into two groups. I presume that's what you are talking about, but let's see your evidence. I have no desire to decide among schemes for dividing humans into [races]. Let's just see what the various schemes are, and whether there are valid predictions that have been demonstrated to follow form them. P0M 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toward the future 

message: one of the problems with the article I think is its dependence on the general intelligence factor as a measure of g. If for example we take a hypothetical situation in which Herrnstein, Murray, rushton,  and jensen never existed. How would the article be written. The truth is even without these protagonists the controversy of race and intelligence would still exist. The notion that a race is inferior is that they are not intelligent.
In the US following the end of slavery came jim crow. The inherent idea was that blacks or native americans were not intelligent enough to be bus drivers, clerks or even cashiers in a store. Any job that a black could do, no matter how simple, a white person could do it better. Therein lied the justification for segregation. The legacy of this still exists today as whenever a minority is given a position doubts arise as to whether he or she can stand the heat. These are just examples of how the race and intelligence controversy is more than simplified number or concept called g.
The issue then is whether G is a real measure of total human intelligence. Then it should have a 100% correlation with success. If say we were to measure the Gs of several presidents or CEOs, my guess is that we would find that most have above average G but not very much above average, like a computer whiz. Also I expect to find the Gs of many of the advisors to these presidents or CEOs to be higher than the presidents or CEOS. For example I expect the G for Condi to be higher than that of President Bush because she was a full professor and provost at Stanford university. She also speaks with varying degrees russian, german, french and spanish whereas president bush only speaks some broken spanish. Condi is also a classical pianist, I do not know whether he can play any musical instruments. With all these issues why is Bush president and not Condi? That is because to be president requires many different skills than academic  qualities alone. The theory of multiple intelligences maybe. 
This article does not capture this dynamic. Jensen and co focus so much on the semi abstract concept of G and its even more abstract concept of its heritability when in actual fact many people are getting on fine with average Gs( Bush says internets, and Clinton only sent one email while president). Muntuwandi 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether intelligence in terms of ability to reason, judge analogies, spatial relations, patterns, etc. is the only factor in success is outside the scope of this article and I don't think you would find anything favorable about analyzing the different races in terms of emotional predilections or cultural values if you are trying to say that sub-Saharan africans have advantages in those regards, or are on par.  There may be interesting contrasts between asians and europeans in those qualities, but again it is totally outside this scope of this article.  You are welcome to work on or start an article about "Intelligence and success" if there are good citations for it - as far as I am aware, all the studies in that regard find a significant correlation between the two.  That would be the place to raise issues of creativity, emotion, motivations, etc.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case it is not sub-saharan africans having advantages outside of G but President Bush. Since ironically the person with arguably the highest G in the bush cabinet is a sub-saharan( Condi). Yes there is a correlation between g and success but it is not a 100% or perfect correlation meaning that the higher the g the more succesful you would be. Hence we would see that all CEO's and presidents would be the people with highest G, they would all be geniuses but we know this is not the case. Muntuwandi 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm satistified personally that the brain size correlations account for almost all of it.  The groups with the highest average size brains have the highest IQ scores.  Also, just so you know, Germans have an average IQ of 106 by some reports which may be the highest in the world.  It's no more reasonable to lump all whites together than all asians.  That doesn't say much about individuals of course.  There are at least two alleles in haplogroup K [here I meant F but K is a similar situation and descendent of F] associated with larger brains, which seem to have appeared with art and civilization in that population .  This is not to mention countless other factors in someone's performance, such as genetic emotional predilections and of course culture and environment, all of which may contribute to creativity tangentally from intelligence.  Haplogroup K is resonsible for virtually all of science, philosophy, technology and art; I don't think it's a coincidence - they are more evolved people.  To discount the role of genetics in human behavior is to disregard the overwhelming body of science that supports it and in my opinion is to be the proverbial ostrich with his head in the ground hiding from the world.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the studies that discuss haplogroup K?  Are there global frequency maps? P0M 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To put anything in this article we need studies that do two things: (1) explain clearly how they are defining "race", and (2) make predictions regarding the average g scores to be expected from members of the [races] they are reporting on. What Fourdee mentions does not necessarily involve any account of [race].P0M 05:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Race can mean both ethnicity and one of the anthropological categories, and other things.  I think it is within the purview of this article, rather than having a separate ethnicity article, to mention ethnic groups, and also to mention haplogroups, as both of those relate to certain uses of the term "race".  What's significant about the above alleles for this article is that the researchers say they are lacking to a substantial degree in sub-saharan africans.  It is not important for this article to define race precisely.  If a researcher uses a common racial term and broad-based statistics relating to it, it's safe to assume both he and the reader understand what he is refering to.  That's my take anyway.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing to understand about brain volume and IQ is that having a big head does not make one intelligent. It is more the other way round people who are intelligent tend to have relatively larger brains. If you measured the IQ of everyone with a big head you will not find anything out of the ordinary. Brain size and intelligence have a correlation of 40%. My statistics is rusty but I think this means that if you had two groups one with small heads and one with big heads then 10% of the small headed group would be geniuses and 14% of the large headed group would be geniuses. Which interpreted means it helps to have a larger brain but often it is not necessary. Also The correlation between skull size and brain volume is not perfect. The amount of Gray matter is critical, having a large brain with little gray matter may not convey any advantages. Also brain convolutions contribute. So it is quality versus quantity. In any case brains have been shrinking, the Neanderthals had larger brains than most humans and Humans had larger brains 50000 years ago then they do today. Muntuwandi 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt say a bigger brain made a person intelligent.  I said the ethnic groups with the largest average brain size also have the highest average IQ.  Any individual might have a small brain and a high IQ of course.  However there is a valid generalization to be made about ethnic groups or races regarding this factor.  As far as Neanderthals and brains shrinking - we are not descended from Neanderthals in any way, and primate brains are definitely growing.  The difference with Neanderthal brains is probably a matter of their structure - like a man's brain versus a woman's.  Certainly it is possible for different ethnic groups (or individuals) to have alleles for differing brain structures that might make one able to have a more compact brain than another with the same intelligence, but the tendancy in primates is for brain sizes to increase (both in absolute size and in relation to body size) as they evolve.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those two alleles you mention illustrate the history of racist thought in science. A few scientist find two alleles not found in African populations and they go on to proclaim that this is what makes europeans intelligent. Even going on to add that these alleles are responsible for the cave paintings at chauvet and lascaux with no proof whatsoever. This is why I believe in multiple intelligences because someone may have PHD and still come up with such nonsense, lacking moral intelligence. Recent studies show that these two alleles have no relation to IQ or brain size. Only their mutations cause abnormality. Yet some writers are going on about how these alleles increased brain power. When will such kind of thinking end. If someone ever finds a real gene and can reproduce results, then it will be acceptable to make a conclusion, not faking information. Muntuwandi 05:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the more recent studies?  What's immoral about believing one race or ethnicity might be better in some way than another? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Race and g

message: Refer to the following sentence : 
"The consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences between individuals of the same race reflect (1) real, (2) functionally/socially significant, and (3) substantially genetic differences in the general intelligence factor."
The references from 59 to 67 repeat the following site citation : http://www.volkmar-weiss.de
Is it customary to repeat references from the same author FOUR TIMES in a row via a website (as opposed to the 'supposed' academic link?).  This should be cut down.  One reference to his website is all that is needed.  The citation creates an undue impression of authoritative sources that back the associated assertion.  
ConcernedScientist 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BAD Citation Practice

message: One of the sources Futurebird listed as defining race and then relating it to intelligence was Matt Riese's "The Biological Meaning of 'Race'".  That article does not have much to say about intelligence other than presenting references to two or three studies/articles that claim to refute The Bell Curve. It's a good general article, but it is a secondary source and therefore can't be meaningfully cited. P0M 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence already present

message: I have gone back over the part from the top to the passage that Skywriter called attention to on 11 June.  There were a couple of points in the top part where [race] is reified (hypostatized), and a couple of places that need better evidence. On the whole, that part of the article looks o.k. to me.
The critique of Skywriter is still appropriate. At the point that the article tries to get down to brass tacks it seems to me to pierce the hull causing the ship to sink.
I've found some good articles that actually define [race] in some unambiguous way and then have something to say about how such [races] correlate with "intelligence," "IQ," etc. But these articles do not support the idea that knowing somebody's [race] tells you about his/her intelligence.  So where are the articles/books on the other side of this dispute? I've seen some things that go as far  as saying that it is plausible that a connection might be found. Beyond that, what do we actually have? Murray and ideas of "self-identified race"? Let's list the evidence, cite the sources. P0M 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus a review of the debate of whether g is intelligence or not should be included.Muntuwandi 03:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top to middle 

message: I do not understand references such as the following, and suspect ordinary readers also would not. What does a bracketed noinclude mean as is found in the following?
# ^ Wilson et al. 2001 <noinclude>, Cooper et al. 2003<noinclude> (given in Bamshad et al. 2004<noinclude>'s summary, p.599)
# ^ Schwartz 2001<noinclude>, Stephens 2003<noinclude> (given in Bamshad et al. 2004<noinclude>'s summary, p. 599)
If at all possible, it would be best to include complete references on same page as the article. I concede that the literature is vast, and that is exactly the reason summaries would be useful. I support the effort by by POM, Futurebird and Ramdrake to assess who has done the most important work on topic and to summarize it.  
I find Ullica Segerstrale's Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond useful in providing back story and interviews with the titans of the race/intelligence debates that this article struggles with. She reveals how and why this was a battle Nobel Laureate Salvador Luria could easily have joined but wisely stayed out of. Stephen Jay Gould and Dick Lewontin do not come off so well. 
Defenders of the Truth offers a way to sort out what and when key people in the field said, what they proved and did not prove, and what they believed but did not prove. She provides extensive documentation and delves into motivation, while offering insights/examples into why particular scientists hold the political beliefs that they do, and how those political beliefs either influence or do not influence what they say about race and intelligence. She explores how qualified each of them are to comment, and discusses provable errors made by each. (Luria's explanation of why he stayed out of the fight is telling.) She also provides useful history on IQ tests and immigrants in early 20th century.
I'd say more on Segerstrale but am compelled to stand in IPhone line. Skywriter 05:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bracketed "no-include": I assume that it's something that either comes from standard HTML code or that whoever wrote it thought would work within the context of Wikipedia. Generally a bracketed command is given once at the beginning and then repeated at the end of whatever it is but with the addition of a "slash." I don't know where special stuff like this gets explained. (I've picked up a few tricks by delving into pages where the tricks have been employed, but I've never seen this one before.)  Is there some web guru on this Wikipedia that can answer such questions? P0M 07:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oddly, it seems not to be visible here, although it was visible in the original context if I remember correctly. P0M 08:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing references

message: Fourdee do you still stand by your claims of the two alleles that conferred intelligence upon europeans.Muntuwandi 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microcephalin

message: Nobody has added anything systematically to the sandbox, so I will start importing sections here for discussion/correction.  I think that all of the theories/accounts of [race] x measurements of IQ or assertions regarding IQ are going to be sparser than the following.  At least Carolus Linnaeus was like Murray et al. in saying something that one can agree with or attempt to disprove.
Theory class                                                  	Researcher                                                   	Conclusions                                                   	Critiques
Discrete sets                                                 	Linnaeus                                                     	Hierarchy of intelligences                                    	No discrete human groups
                                                              	Who?                                                         	?                                                             	?
Subspecies (Lineage1)                                         	NULL                                                         	NULL                                                          	Scientific community (Templeton, et al.) denies human subspecies
Essentialist*                                                 	NULL                                                         	NULL                                                          	No traits absolutely limited or linked
Taxonomic (Marker traits x Place of origin)                   	NULL                                                         	NULL                                                          	Pragmatic value for G.B. law enforcement only.
Populations                                                   	?                                                            	?                                                             	?
DNA traits x Place of origin = lineage2 groups**              	?                                                            	?                                                             	?
Clades                                                        	?                                                            	?                                                             	?
Haplogroups                                                   	?                                                            	?                                                             	?
Isogenic regions (based on some set of traits)                	?                                                            	?                                                             	?
                                                              	                                                             	                                                              	
Vernacular English definition***                              	Herrnstein (a psychologist) & Murray ( a political scientist)	Intelligence correlates strongly with "race."                 	Races not defined. genetics implied. IQ, not intelligence, measured.
Distinguishable geographic populations = subspecies****       	J. Philippe Rushton (psychologist)                           	IQ of Asians > IQ of Europeans > IQ of Africans               	No human subspecies, no discrete groups, testing validity?
IQ 80% determined by "genetics" -- "blacks," "whites,"...*****	Arthur R. Jensen (psychologist), H.J. Eysenck (psychologist) 	IQ of whites > IQ of blacks                                   	Evidence fabricated? Genetic factors can't be isolated by IQ tests.
Various geographical "slices" ******                          	Richard Lynn (psychologist)                                  	Represents IQ as clinal by N-S and other regional dispositions	Evidence twisted? IQ as intelligence misinterpreted.
Traditional "races" *******                                   	Linda S. Gottfredson (psychologist)                          	Supports Jensen and Rushton                                   	Correlation does not prove causation.
* Somebody belongs to race X if s/he has traits a, b, c.... nn.
** Assumes that mtDNA or Y-chromosome DNA essentially "marks" people having reached genetic equilibrium who migrated to a relatively isolated place. The group can be viewed, metaphorically, as an asexually reproducing organism whose group characteristics are passed down very little changed from generation to generation.
*** Simply starts talking as though "whites," "blacks," etc. have undisputed, common meanings. Then on p. 272 he says, "Thus we will eventually comment on cognitive differences among races as they might derive from genetic differences, telling a story that is interesting but still riddled with more questions than answers....There are differences between races, and they are the rule, not the exception." He accepts IQ tests as accurate measures of intelligence.
**** See http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr01.html. 
***** See
http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/othersrv/isar/archives2/billig/chapter2.htm 
****** See http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html for a report based on http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1076641 (which you can pay to read).
*******\ See
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005hereditarian-hypothesis.pdf
"The newly popular assertion that races
'don’t exist' is a straw man (no one believes that racial groups are biologically distinct entities), which does nothing to nullify the evidence it would have us ignore. Appears to take the conventional "races" as a given.
I think we are going to end up with a table full of "nulls", and a bulge when we get to theories that have fuzzy definitions of one kind or another for "race." P0M 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report on sections 1-10  (sandbox) 

message: Ramdrake called attention to the idea of "biogeographical range," but the term has largely disappeared from the articles on [race].  (I remember complaining about it before when somebody just threw in "BGR" or something like that.) I've found places where it means "ancestry x ecological regions" or something like that. Is that what the word has meant in these "race" discussions? P0M 06:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I meant to convey here was that if one uses the clinal concept of human biodiversity, and says their definition of "races" is something close to that, then biogeographic ancestry (call it biogeographic range if you will) is a significant factor in a clinal definition of human biodiversity, nothing more esoteric.--Ramdrake 11:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I still do not understand your point. If we draw a map of Africa and Eurasia and come up with a contiguous area in which the average measures of samples of some trait are all the same value ± some small value, then our expectation is that if somebody else goes out and randomly selects a random sample from that area it is unlikely that any one of the people sampled will fall outside that range and even more unlikely that the average of their values will fall outside that range. Whether the individuals we are looking at happen to be in Africa, in Asia, or in Europe would not have any saliency. The geography part would be relevant in graphing individuals who have value x of variable a and value y of variable b. "Average height over 6 feet AND skin reflectivity less than 10% is found in Africa, but not in the Netherlands or Lithuania." (I'm making that up, sort of, but you get the idea.)  P0M 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree on this, of course, just like the old observation that if you go from Oslo to Nairobi the average color of people's skin will change from "white" to "black", but at no point during the journey will you be able to say "here, people stop being white and start being black", because it is a continuum spread over a geographical range. However, this does not contradict the fact that you can empirically say (the most basic definition of "race") that there are "black" people and "white" people and that these could ancestrally be found in different areas of the planet (until recent times, of course, when this has become much, much more relative). If we still don't understand each other, I'd rather drop the subject, as that's not really a vital observation I was trying to make.--Ramdrake 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning? 

message: Thinking back over the history of debates on this article, particularly when RIK was very actively involved, most of the discussion was to the point that "traditional races" were validated by clustering of genetic traits. However, even people like Richard Lynn who seem to be trying to give as much respectable data as possible in regard to IQ tests do not seem to have any interest at looking at the question of what [races] are. They all seem to simply go with "what is obvious to everybody," or to go with geographical regions as surrogates for the [races] "that everybody recognizes."  So all of the attempts of other researchers to define "race" in a careful and conscientious way are irrelevant to the work of the researchers who collect and rank IQ averages and assign them to [races].
If we take a soft focus approach we can see that a sort of photo composite of Europeans would look different from the composite pictures of Africans, East Asians, etc. And if we assume that there is a single thing called intelligence that can be reduced to a single number, and assume that there is a test that validly applies to each of the many cultures found scattered over the globe, then we can assign average g scores to each of the [races]. People easily overgeneralize. They quickly make a takeoff from "Students in Taiwan have a much higher average math score on their College Boards than do students from the U.S." (Actually, I think this is a true statement.) They almost might conclude that Cal Tech and MIT should be reserved for any students from that background, when the fact is that there is no telling how an individual will test out. Also, they easily assume that there is something about these students being East Asians that accounts for their high math scores, when, in fact, the math education given students in Taiwan (and places with similar educational systems) may be much different from that provided to students in the U.S.
The unstated assumption behind the work of those who study "race and intelligence" is that the [racial] traits hang together with the [intelligence] traits. What is the purpose, the utility, of accounts of "race and intelligence" if one cannot determine the [race] of an individual or group of individuals and know something about the educational potentials, life outcomes, etc. that depend on [intelligence]. There must be some practical reason for not simply giving an individual an IQ test, or an aptitude test suitable to a particular job, and for determining the individual's [race] instead. It is easier to look at a person and automatically assign him to the position of bus boy or waiter, cook or bottle washer, than to do the work of administering a test.  
There is no question that tests are done on [racial] grounds and that results are found in terms of different IQ tests. There are some charts in the "Race and Intelligence" article to demonstrate this point, for instance.
So the real question that this article has to ask are, on level 1: (A) Is there an account of [race] that fulfills the implicit idea that a categorization by "marker traits" can correctly imply unseen and hard to measure traits?  (If all people with blue eyes were immune to HIV, knowledge of that fact might have many practical advantages for public health services, hospital laboratory hiring, etc.) (B) Is there a measurement of intelligence that truly represents an individual's potential for learning and performance (and not simply represent outcomes that mix nature and nurture)? Our first job is to make these questions relevant and clear to readers.
On level 2 we need to survey the range of ways of categorizing people on an infraspecific level, and we need to show the ways that these systems have been criticized. We also need to survey the problematical aspects of intelligence testing. Some of the critiques of Lynn et al. are much clearer on this score than anything I've seen in Wikipedia articles so far.  
On level 3 we need to examine the social uses that the research papers have been put to. One of the things of which I was unaware is how popular some of the "race and intelligence" people are with racist groups. Whether or not they intend to give comfort to the white supremacist groups, any research that says "Whites are better than blacks" appears to draw lots of positive attention. Eugenics is another area that receives support from some of the people I've listed in the big chart above, and some of the researchers give support to at least letting "inferior" groups die out quietly. P0M 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the article, II 

message: Although Sowell has strong credentials and I don't dispute the premise in this edit , I'm a bit uncomfortable using editorials as sources in WP.  I am concerned that a lot of unsubstantiated opinions are slipping into this series of article under the premise that it was said in a published book or by someone affiliated with a major university.  Regardless of the affiliation or the existence of a publication, it doesn't make it encyclopedic.  We really have a lot of WP:ILIKEIT going on here, and not singling out Moritz other than as the most recent example.  I htink that we need braoder sourcing to support much of what is being said.  --Kevin Murray 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THOMAS SOWELL 

message: These two subsections should be merged since they sound like the same thing.Muntuwandi 05:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background or history

message: These sentences make no sense and are not factually true:
:"However contrary to indications from the IQ and the Wealth of Nations study, the majority of blacks enrolled in Ivy League Universities in the US are either from Africa or the Caribbean. Notable examples include Barack Obama and his father Obama Sr. The chairperson of the sociology department at Harvard University stated: Since they come from majority-black countries, they are less psychologically handicapped by the stigma of race."
Point of fact: Barack Obama did not grow up in a majority-black country and he is not "from Africa or the Caribbean." He grew up in Jakarta and Hawaii. Therefore the section on Obama should be deleted. Does anyone disagree?Skywriter 09:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree. --Kevin Murray 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The modern controversy surrounding intelligence and race focuses lacks citations and is therefore a candidate for immediate deletion.
Worse, it conflates IQ with intelligence representing somebody's personal opinion but nothing mainstream. 
Does anyone object to deletion? Skywriter 09:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectional Candidates for Immediate Deletion

message: I think this is a good section.  My only concern is that getting into published books is drifting away from what most people would consider media.  Should we begin a new section with what Ramdrake has just added and maybe expand to include other recent publications.  Where is the line between research, testing, and publications?  Perhaps we might make the breakpoint at whether it was original research or a compilation of prior research.  Godfriedson did not do original research as I understand.--Kevin Murray 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, not sure I follow you, as the few references I mentioned in the section are all cited several times through the group of articles covering this topic. I'M not sure if and where we could justify additional portrayal of these (although I'm open to suggestion).--Ramdrake 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  How stand-alone should this article be?  There are bigger issues than this so I say that this is just fine for now.  MAybe we cab revisit the issue later. --Kevin Murray 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media portrayal

message: Is this article over emphasizing blacks and whites in the US?  Is it practical to deemphasize this issue? --Kevin Murray 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black - White and US centric

message: It seems that this article need quite a bit of work, and that we have some fresh and energetic contributors.  Maybe we could collaborate on improvements one section at a time for a little while.  I've been involved in other projects for a while, but have some time to spend now.  Any interest? --Kevin Murray 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed. I would say the first rule should be to discuss the changes you'd like to make to the artcle on this talk page first.--Ramdrake 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project proposal

message: All books including reference titles such as Chicago Manual of Style at Wikipedia gets two individual quote marks and from that the reader can see italics, and discern that it is a book. Articles and quotes get double quote marks, "like this" that do not appear as italics. Publication titles such as The New York Times gets two single quote marks, which causes it to be italic when read.
This note to point out that the references are a mess. Again, in this article, this maybe virtuous.Skywriter 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style point- Books, articles and quotations, their similarities and differences

message: I began an article on Russell Jacoby who SW had recommended as a resource above.  Please help to bolster my stub.  --Kevin Murray 09:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russell Jacoby

message: The section is quite relevant to the discussion on race and intelligence. Since the article is "race and intelligence", both "race" and "intelligence" should be defined. Not everyone agrees with that intelligence can be pigeonholed into one number G or IQ. Thus the alternative theories need to be presented. Even though many in the establishment despise Gardner's theories, they are still being actively debated. Even Jensen himself discusses multiple intelligences and savants  . Therefore I believe that alternative theories regarding what is intelligence should be included. with the study of group differences, even one exception to the rule is enough to make a whole hypothesis questionable.Muntuwandi 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that intellegence is not all of what makes a human function mentaly, but it is the subject of this article for better or for worse. --Kevin Murray 05:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All these aspects of human behaviour seem interrelated. One issue is that writing has only been in existence for the last 5000 years. Even for much of that time only a privileged few had access to writing, it is only in the last few centuries that education has become mandatory for all. The skills that particularly require IQ have thus only been in existence for 5000 years. For the rest of human history people got by using the other multiple intelligences. For those who have a genetic hypothesis, 5000 years seems too short a time for evolution to have conferred upon certain races advanced cognitive abilities. Jensen believes these abilities evolved for some other reason earlier on in human history, Exaptation. Thus if a genetic difference exists between the races then there should be an explanation of how it came about. Muntuwandi 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple intelligences

message: a/c to 64.191.93.101 talk page, 64.191.93.101 has history only of vandalism. That looks true here too as 64.191.93.101 ignored factual data on Obama.
Skywriter 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that the user is a known vandal. --Kevin Murray 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: last 2 edits

message: I've removed two paragraphs from the intro that argues both sides of the "is 'race' a real biological concept?" debate: while NPOV, this is both far too detailed for the intro, and not thorough enough for the body of the article, which deals with the same material in much greater detail, and renders these paragraphs redundant. -- Karada 14:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, according to WP standards, these subjects, if present in the article, should be also presnet in the intro, especially as the debate over the validity of race is pivotal to the validity of R&I research.--Ramdrake 17:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a mention of this into the intro at the same time as I took the other material out. -- Karada 19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suits me fine.--Ramdrake 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work Karada.  Now can you help trim some bulk elsewhere? --Kevin Murray 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail in the intro 

message: I agree with the IU article. I find these standard deviations and correlation coefficients least exciting and not very informative, possibly even easy to manipulate.Muntuwandi 05:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics