Talk:Race and intelligence (utility of research)

message: This should be condensed and placed in the main article, Race and intelligence. futurebird 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This and other such entires should be discussed in the main talk page. --W. D. Hamilton 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Condense and merge back?

message: The division of Homo sapiens into 3 to 6 race taxons began in the 18th century before the establishment of genetics and evolutionary biology. These disciplines have since shown that human race taxonomy has no scientific basis. Race is thus a flawed social construct that reflects concepts created from prevailing social perceptions without scientific evidence. 
Have You Ever Seen an Asian/Pacific Islander? Archives of Dermatology HC Williams  Vol. 138 No. 5, May 2002
----
In the ‘pre-genomic’ era race was the surrogate for genetic effects at the population level, and it must follow that molecular research will now largely transform that agenda.
The central message put forward by those championing this updated version of race, wherein molecular data indeed show that genetic variation is discontinuous, represents a minority position, however. 
It is perhaps characteristic of the concept of race that it has retained its vitality in the scientific literature during the molecular age while being excluded from the requirement of a definition that meets the usual statistical requirements in epidemiology. From the point of view of the population genetics it is hard to see how progress will be made until this issue is resolved.
To argue that the existence of the ‘races of man’ has been confirmed because of cluster analysis and description of superficial physical differences represents an intervention into public health that remains inadequately justified. 
Having argued that we should maintain an open mind in order to make use of what is new and unanticipated in the emerging molecular data, and that strong conclusions are at best premature, let me offer my own (tentative) conclusions. The concept of race is unlikely to have value in public health—not only do the useful population units occur at a smallersize, race drags with it the dead weight of its noxious past. 
Race, genes, and health—new wine in old bottles? International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:23-25 by Richard S. Cooper, Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine
----
Researchers frequently failed to differentiate between the concepts of race and ethnicity, to state the context in which these variables were used, to state the study methods used to assess these variables, and to discuss significant study results based on race or ethnicity. Continued professional commitment is needed to ensure the scientific integrity of race and ethnicity as variables.
American Journal of Epidemiology. 159(6):611-619, March 15, 2004.
Comstock, R. Dawn 1,2; Castillo, Edward M. 3; Lindsay, Suzanne P. 4
----
Using race as a proxy for genetic differences limits understandings of the complex interactions among political-economic processes, lived experiences, and human biologies. By moving beyond studies of racialized genetics, we can clarify the processes by which varied and interwoven forms of racialization and racism affect individuals "under the skin." 
Why genes don't count (for racial differences in health) AH Goodman
US Southwest and Mexico Program, School of Natural Science, Hampshire College, Amherst. American Journal of Public Health, Vol 90, Issue 11 1699-1702, 2000
----
These are all about race in itself. They are outside the scope of this article. They are also just one small part of the rather expansive debate that has occurred surrounding race. --W. D. Hamilton 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and quotes to use for historical context

message: the lead is out of sync with the body. for example, chris brand is mentioned in the lead but not the body. (coincidently, i question whether brand doesn't represent a fringe view and/or whether he's being properly represented.) per wp:lead, A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead. --W.R.N. 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you replace him with a better example? I'll move the mention of Chris to some place less prominent, in the mean time...futurebird 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wonder (1) if he's one only person who holds the view ascribed to him (if so, then it's not notable) and (2) I wonder if he thinks "race realism" is in itself valuable versus whether he thinks its a means to some end (I don't know). --W.R.N. 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead v body 

message: To my knowledge, there are no comparable studies examining the potential genetic basis for the differences in test score achievement between white and Asian and white and Asian-American students. If test score data can serve as an adequate and reliable basis for evaluating potential genetic differences in populations, then perhaps we should undertake empirical studies to determine whether there is a genetic basis for why Asian and Asian American students typically outperform their white counterparts, particularly in the areas of mathematics and science. The very question is absurd, however; and no scholar, to my knowledge, takes it as a topic worthy of empirical investigation. [10]
of course comparable studies have been done, and the topic of e.asian-european differences in science/math have been studied as well. it seems the only part of the quote that's salient is "The very question is absurd". --W.R.N. 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lee quote