Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 55

message: I will address MrASingh's points below
Comparing humans to apples, and the problems that they face to worms is probably either a reflection of your mutilated mind, or, more probably of your complete inability to understand verbal arguments that stretch beyond a few sentences (let alone the paragraphs that make up this article).  
>> It's called an analogy... it's you simplify things, which I had hoped would help you understand things better. Clearly I misunderstood the stupidity of people. There are no arguments in this article. Arguments are relegated to the discussion pages. You are severely confused sir.
You have not stated your definition of poverty.  We should not just be talking about nutritional poverty here, there are many different types.  There is social poverty (which some would stated is related to cultural poverty).  Then you have not defined what nutrition is!  Just having enough food to prevent starvation is not enough – one needs enough food to perform activities and the like.  Certainly, much in the way of those IQ scores at the lower end of the IQ range are probably down to bad nutrition.    
>> If you had enough food to prevent starvation then you will have enough food for brain development. How do I know this? Because ~20% of glucose is diverted to your brain, and a constant supply is provided even at the expense of muscles, fat and carbohydrate storage. I already stated that the proteins needed to actually build the brain is a base requirement. If enough food is provided so that there is a homeostasis between anabolism and catabolism then yes, enough energy is provided for the brain. Of course then you'll question the definition of starvation and such... well then why don't you argue why the word green conveys the color we see? Your argument is flawed. There's information on this in the article or at least on wiki that food and intelligence are not strongly correlated I searched it up before I made to comment.  
>> Cultural poverty? please define that since you just made this up.
This is where the purpose of the article is questionable.  You are essentially stating that it is morally acceptable to discriminate against people who have already been discriminated against (for example, those who, by chance – change discrimination, ie: bad luck – and those who have been discriminated within politics).  This is clearly a strange moral code and system of beliefs.  You are wrong.  Nor is there any point is using race as a statistic to deduce likely intelligence.  Statistics need to be reliable and deterministic.  That is, I can't view a person as a fuzzy cloud of statistical material and state that “they are probably stupid” or that they are “probably smart”, any more than it would make sense to look at a person and state that they are “probably blonde” or “probably black”.  The point here is that that the information concerning that individual's merit should be tested or it should be deduced in a methodological and scientific fashion.  
>> Everyone has bad luck. So what? bad luck is NO ONE'S fault, so why should I compensate for something that's not my fault? You ABUSE the word discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I discriminate the difference between concentrated sulfuric acid and citric acid. I discriminate on whether I go to one store over the other because it's cheaper. This is not what I'm talking about. It's pure logic. Be serious. This is life. You think I'm a racist? well then you're just an idiot. Studies have found that people with black sounding names are less likely to be called back for an interview even with same resumes. THOSE employers are racist. I actually decide to hire the person who will benefit me the most, independent of race. Your view on statistics is also vitally FLAWED. They are often VERY accurate, it is common misconception that statistics is very vague and such. You are wrong. In order for something to be considered statistically significant, basic tests, which anyone with basic high school to entry university knowledge, would know. Tests like chi-squared, all sorts of regression analysis provide irrefutable answers. As I've said, statistics govern when to recalibrate a machine, whether lung cancer are on the rise, which medical procedure are better. Basically, right now, you are DISCRIMINATING on which statistics you choose to accept. And you discriminate which statistics you choose to believe based on what you want to believe. (ie, you decide to take the plane based on the statistics that it's more safe then driving your own cars, but you decide to NOT accept the statistics that certain races are on average have lower IQ then others)
It depends on whether or not I were going to grow my own apple's from the seeds that are given – it might be more economically viable to go for group A's apple's (the wormy one's) as they have the same genetic information as group B, probably cost less as they look less than wholesome.  Also, they come free with nice fertilising worms !  (The last point is a facetious comment). 
 
>> The premise was WHICH ONE YOU WERE GOING TO EAT, not whether you're going to grow apples. Further it was stated that both apples LOOK THE SAME. Your BLATANT INABILITY to read and comprehend the key analogy that I wrote explains the blunt ignorance you have thus far demonstrated.
People do not see racism at every turn, they see RACISTS at every turn.  You can't see a concept (though you can read it).  In a way not dissimilar to how you can not look at someone and deduce their IQ, though you can ask them about their opinions.  
>> Yes, I agree, you are one of the people who see RACISTS at every turn. I also agree that you cannot absolutely deduce someone's IQ by looking at them. BUT without asking for their opinions (which is not always possible) I CAN deduce their PROBABLE IQ which is better then being completely clueless like you.
You would need to check references for this.  I am someone who favours standardisation of exams and tests – you are not comparing like with like.  Therefore your comparison is not well-founded.  
>> If you are unable to decide which person to hire, with a person from Standford graduating with honors and someone from U of C with a GPA of 2.0 then you are either absolutely insane or incredibly stupid. 
I have commented on this above.  Let me give you my example : 
A Jew arrives straight off the boat and has to climb the top of a tower in order to pass American entrance tests and examinations.  Would you tell him where to get off based upon the fact that “you hear that Jews are not smart”?  According to your previous logic, this is exactly what you would do.  
>> First of all, my comments was based on STATISTICS not just "something I heard". Secondly, where exactly is the Jew getting off to?  Thirdly, I would most probably tell him how to get off (the boat I assume) since he/she may have language barriers or doesn't know how to get off the boat without getting hurt. Hell, If I've just been on a trans continental boat to a new country with different language and culture then mine, I would certainly want someone to tell me how to off a boat safely. This is a completely flawed analogy (since I've shown it completely backfires on you) and has nothing to do with race.
The moral of the story is tests and standardisation when distributing finite resources.
>> What story?
 
Logic requires intelligence, businesses make profit.  I doubt you are capable of either.
>> Logic also requires you to actually read and comprehend knowledge. Something you have DEMONSTRATED you are not capable of. You have inevitably doubted wrong. May I also point out the fact that you are Sikh that you are susceptible to BIAS. I am also a minority  race but I've seen pass the excuses of "bad luck" and "cultural poverty"... whatever that is.
You cannot deduce someone's intelligence by meeting them.  It really does have to be tested.  There are many salesmen who speak well, but think c**p.  
>> And this is from the person who wrote "In a way not dissimilar to how you can not look at someone and deduce their IQ, though you can ask them about their opinions."? Make up your mind. If you're going to meet someone you're going to talk to them... and by talking to you I've already deduced you are someone who has the intelligence near that of a rock. 
Hope you liked my open ended decisions.  
>> I clearly found them distasteful yet stupidly humorous
To an extent, this part is correct.  BUT I very much doubt that social scientists apply statistics in the very self-same way that other scientists and engineers do.  
>> Maybe they should
There are three types of lie : LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS.
>> nice rebuttal... nothing intellectual to say?  
Well, of course.  No-one's calling you a racist.  Just a bigot.
>> Well I'm calling you an idiot and a bigot.
Darkcurrent 04:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Have decided MrASingh cannot grasp a single concept 

message: Comparing humans to apples, and the problems that they face to worms is probably either a reflection of your mutilated mind, or, more probably of your complete inability to understand verbal arguments that stretch beyond a few sentences (let alone the paragraphs that make up this article).  
Anyhow, I'll address your points as below : 
I believe, that up to a point, poverty and intelligence are related. (the body needs at least essential requirements of nutrients to grow, but that correlation shouldn't be linear or else the more you eat the smarter you get)
> You have not stated your definition of poverty.  We should not just be talking about nutritional poverty here, there are many different types.  There is social poverty (which some would stated is related to cultural poverty).  Then you have not defined what nutrition is!  Just having enough food to prevent starvation is not enough – one needs enough food to perform activities and the like.  Certainly, much in the way of those IQ scores at the lower end of the IQ range are probably down to bad nutrition.    
> You probably raise several points.  
If the average intelligence a particular country is low due to poverty and such, it doesn't mean that it is due to race/genetics, BUT it does mean that one could (on average) identify the most probable person to have a lower IQ based on race.
> This is where the purpose of the article is questionable.  You are essentially stating that it is morally acceptable to discriminate against people who have already been discriminated against (for example, those who, by chance – change discrimination, ie: bad luck – and those who have been discriminated within politics).  This is clearly a strange moral code and system of beliefs.  You are wrong.  Nor is there any point is using race as a statistic to deduce likely intelligence.  Statistics need to be reliable and deterministic.  That is, I can't view a person as a fuzzy cloud of statistical material and state that “they are probably stupid” or that they are “probably smart”, any more than it would make sense to look at a person and state that they are “probably blonde” or “probably black”.  The point here is that that the information concerning that individual's merit should be tested or it should be deduced in a methodological and scientific fashion.  
Here's an example.
I have two apples from two fields, the apples are of the same species. The first apple is from field A and is known to have an infestation problems with worms, the other apple is from field B and is housed in a green house away from parasites. Now, on average, the apples from Field A is not suitable for human consumption because of the worms and the apples from field B is suitable for human consumption.
Now, I hand you the two apples. One from field A one from Field B. They both look the same outside (the worm burrows inside the apple) and you know which one is from field A and which apple is from field B. Tell me which one you would choose to eat?
The obvious answer is the one from field B.
Even though the two apples are from the same species, and they are both equally susecetpable to parasites (worms in this case) the one on field A has a higher chance of being diseased due to enviromental factors, not genetics. But even so, if we were to choose one, we'd all chose the one from field B.
> It depends on whether or not I were going to grow my own apple's from the seeds that are given – it might be more economically viable to go for group A's apple's (the wormy one's) as they have the same genetic information as group B, probably cost less as they look less than wholesome.  Also, they come free with nice fertilising worms !  (The last point is a facetious comment).  
But this basic logic is loss on some people when applying this to people (those who see racism at every turn).
> People do not see racism at every turn, they see RACISTS at every turn.  You can't see a concept (though you can read it).  In a way not dissimilar to how you can not look at someone and deduce their IQ, though you can ask them about their opinions.  
For example
If I was an employer
> I sincerely hope not.  
, and had someone from Ethiopia with a stanford degree with honors, I'd hire him over some caucasian with a degree from university of calgary with a GPA of 2. 
> You would need to check references for this.  I am someone who favours standardisation of exams and tests – you are not comparing like with like.  Therefore your comparison is not well-founded.  
BUT if I had to choose WITHOUT knowing their respective degrees and without actually meeting them (judging from how read they are, etc...) I would choose the caucasian over the Ethiopian based on the statistics provided below (IQ average Ethiopia - 63 http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm)
> I have commented on this above.  Let me give you my example : 
A Jew arrives straight off the boat and has to climb the top of a tower in order to pass American entrance tests and examinations (the life experiences of 20th century Jews are not likely to be too much different to that of 21st century Ethiopians).  Would you tell him where to get off based upon the fact that “you hear that Jews are not smart”?  According to your previous logic, this is exactly what you would do.  
> The moral of the story is tests and standardisation when distributing finite resources.   
Is this racism or is it just purely logic and business? 
> Logic requires intelligence, businesses make profit.  I doubt you are capable of either.  
Of course you'd ask, oh when do we hire without looking at backgrounds and such... well apply this to meeting some general person on the streets. Initial impressions. This is where I believe some of the racism in this world occurs. Would it be racist to assume that some person I meet, who is ethopian, has a lower IQ then people from north america? 
> You cannot deduce someone's intelligence by meeting them.  It really does have to be tested.  There are many salesmen who speak well, but think c**p.  
You decide.
> Hope you liked my open ended decisions.  
To me, it's no, becuase it's based on statistics, and just like the statistics that allows rockets to be fired into space, or determining the average income of genders, it's just numbers. 
> To an extent, this part is correct.  BUT I very much doubt that social scientists apply statistics in the very self-same way that other scientists and engineers do.  
They don't lie.
> There are three types of lie : LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS.
 And If I had to decide, it's basic logic. I'm not saying it's because of genetics, I know that poverty contributes to the low IQ. But when I have to make the decision, it doesn't really matter WHAT is the cause of the lower average IQ, I just need to know what the IQ is.
> Well, of course.  No-one's calling you a racist.  Just a bigot.
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrASingh (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have Decided on Your Mad, Unencyclopedic R**t 

message: I believe, it may be good idea to add in the article some statistic data on this subject by countries: 
http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
Average IQ of Countries
The average IQ in the United States is usually set at 100. Groups within the US score different average IQ's, such as 115 for college grads or 85 for African-Americans. Similarly, average IQ varies from country to country, shown in the 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (sets Britain at 100):
Hong Kong 107 Korea, South 106 Japan 105 Taiwan 104 Singapore 104 Austria 102 Germany 102 Italy 102 Netherlands 102 Sweden 101 Switzerland 101 Belgium 100 China 100 New Zealand 100 U. Kingdom 100 Hungary 99 Poland 99 Australia 98 Denmark 98 France 98 Norway 98 United States 98 Canada 97 Czech Republic 97 Finland 97 Spain 97 Argentina 96 Russia 96 Slovakia 96 Uruguay 96 Portugal 95 Slovenia 95 Israel 94 Romania 94 Bulgaria 93 Ireland 93 Greece 92 Malaysia 92 Thailand 91 Croatia 90 Peru 90 Turkey 90 Colombia 89 Indonesia 89 Suriname 89 Brazil 87 Iraq 87 Mexico 87 Samoa (Western) 87 Tonga 87 Lebanon 86 Philippines 86 Cuba 85 Morocco 85 Fiji 84 Iran 84 Marshall Islands 84 Puerto Rico 84 Egypt 83 India 81 Ecuador 80 Guatemala 79 Barbados 78 Nepal 78 Qatar 78 Zambia 77 Congo (Brazz) 73 Uganda 73 Jamaica 72 Kenya 72 South Africa 72 Sudan 72 Tanzania 72 Ghana 71 Nigeria 67 Guinea 66 Zimbabwe 66 Congo (Zaire) 65 Sierra Leone 64 Ethiopia 63 Equatorial Guinea 59--Igor "the Otter" 14:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be all that sun that causes the low scores in Ethiopia :P futurebird 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think, Lynn deals there ("Race Differences in Intelligence") rather with ethnic groups then with races. Races are biological thing, but I didn't seen any data on genetic tests made by Lynn in his research. Race have nothing to do with self-identification. But the data on countries still seem to be objective ones.--Igor "the Otter" 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever it indicates, it seem to be useful information here, right? IQ differences hardly seems completely depending of income or something like this (United Arab Emirates: GDP/ capita 2002: 22000, average IQ: 83; -- Palestine (West Bank): GDP/ capita 2002: 800, average IQ: 87) (http://sq.4mg.com/corrupt.htm) --Igor "the Otter" 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence - not much action there --W.R.N. 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to do anything? futurebird 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tell me this means the experiment has workd!  I'll have a heart-attack! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SLR I'm confused. futurebird 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mediation 

message: On Wed. I will archive current sections 1-11, which takes us up to my first archiving announcement.  In the next to days please make sure that any material in those sections that should go into an article is moved into an article, and any material relevant to an ongoing discussion is conserved in the talk page.  Thanks Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Archive warning 

message: There has been a lot of work on this article since it was unprotected.  Are we ready to remove the totally disputed tag now?  If not, why not (specifics please)? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard for me to have perspective on this. What do you think SLR? It is a lot better, although now it needs to be cleaned up. futurebird 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A number of sections give undue weight or present a biased description of otherwise factual statements. This includes the lead. --W.R.N. 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, FYI - I've been waiting for progress at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence in lieu of discussion here, but it appears to be stalled. --W.R.N. 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I think the totally disputed tag can go.  I've also been waiting for more activity in the mediation page, but I believe that the contributions recently have helped reduce the level of dispute, even though it is still a controversial topic.  I would expect WRN to disagree, since in general the motion of the article has gone against his POV, but I would defer to his opinion on the tag for now. --JereKrischel 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI - I was waiting for FB, JK, Kevin or any of the other editors who signed up for mediation to respond to my comment that there were several competing visions of the presentation of research, but that none were specific enough to really decide between. --W.R.N. 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we remove the "totally disputed" tag now? 

message: Hello, I propose the following amendments to the background information.  Does anyone have any problems with these before I enact them.
1.
Invented in the early 20th century, IQ tests have been strongly criticized, among others by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1981).
Should be amended to read: Invented in the early 20th century, IQ tests have been strongly criticized, among others by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1981) but are now considered to be relatively reliable, valid and stable measures of cognitive ability.
2.
The Bell Curve, a controversial book that asserted that the gap in black and white IQ scores was, in part, genetic, received a great deal of positive publicity
Should be amended to read: The Bell Curve, a controversial book that asserted that the gap in black and white IQ scores was probably, in part, genetic, received a great deal of positive publicity.
Because this is what the book says.
3.
The conclusions of a few researchers: that racial groups in the US vary in average IQ scores, and the hypothesis that a genetic component may be involved, have led to heated academic debates that have spilled over into the public sphere.
Should be amended to read: The conclusions of some researchers: that racial groups in the US vary in average IQ scores, and the hypothesis that a genetic component may be involved, have led to heated academic debates that have spilled over into the public sphere.
Few is subjective one persons few might be another persons many.
Romper 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine. futurebird 02:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your ammeded 1) overstates the case with regard to validity.  While some psychometricians regard single score IQ tests as valid almost all congitive neuropsychologists and psychologists influenced by Evolutionary Psychology believe that cognitive abilities are modular in nature and single score intelligence tests are not valid. Amongst the psychology professions, Clinical, Occupational and Educational Psychology, there is more interest in specific patterns of cognitive abilities than single score intelligence tests.  Finally almost all psychology textbooks present the validity of single score intelligence tests as controversial.JonathanE 08:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background information

message: the MI theories aren't important enough to race differences in intelligence to warrant discussion in the background section. it does not reoccur in later sections. --W.R.N. 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May be better in a subarticle, maybe moved there, but should certainly not be removed completely.Ultramarine 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not deleted. Your comment is right under it. I moved it here because it's good material, just not for this article. As with the other material I moved from the article to talk, I did so specifically so that it could be addressed without being lost (i.e., forgotten - nothing is ever lost). --W.R.N. 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not given any good reason for deleting this sourced material directly relating to intelligence and race. You personally do not think MI theories are important; not anonymous scholarly authors state otherwise. Maybe it should be moved to a subarticle, like Research, Interpretations, or Explanations. But until then, do not remove, otherwise anything, no matter how important or well-sourced, can be removed from any article simply by moving it to the talk page.Ultramarine 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How about moving it to the explanations article with a brief mention here? Ultramarine 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move it wherever it's important, but it's not important here. In case it wasn't clear, my argument is based solely on the actual article content we're currently dealing with. If it turns out that there's a lot to say about MI theories, then it would be important, but having it in background now is clearly not appropriate (per NPOV-weight). I would think that mention of MI would be about "test data" but I have no particularly strongly formed beliefs about that. Perhaps explanations, but that article is currently overburdened. --W.R.N. 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article 

message: Christine E. Daley, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Howard Gardner and other psychologists have challenged the classicist model of a single index for "intelligence" on which hereditarian assumptions of racial disparity are based. They advocate a theory of multiple intelligences. They write that through research on multiple intelligences they may reveal a more nuanced perspective in to the strengths and weaknesses of students and in to the ways that people view the intelligences of people from other ethnic groups. Racial Differences in IQ Revisited: A Synthesis of Nearly a Century of Research by Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie and Gardner (1983) seven multiple intelligencesCultural differences may lead children to develop different strengths in different areas of intelligence. Leroy G. Baruth and M. Lee Manning write "Knowing that a relationship exists between cultures and education is a prerequisite to effective teaching, but continuing to teach with styles and strategies appropriate only for middle-class Anglo learners fails to meet the needs of culturally diverse children and adolescents." Multicultural Education of Children and Adolescents. (Baruth & Manning, 1992, p. 332).
Ketty M. Sarouphim writes in Discovering Multiple Intelligences through a Performance-Based Assessment: Consistency with Independent RatingsDiscovering Multiple Intelligences through a Performance-Based Assessment: Consistency with Independent Ratings Journal article by Ketty M. Sarouphim; Exceptional Children, Vol. 65, 1999 that the use of standardized tests to assess the intelligence of culturally diverse groups has been much criticized (Clasen, Middleton, & Connell; 1994; Cummins; 1991; Maker, 1996; Samuda, 1991). Some researchers have attributed the problem of underrepresentation of minority students in programs for the gifted to the wide use of such tests in which narrow definitions of giftedness are adopted (Cummins, 1991; Gardner, 1992; Maker, 1993). Sarouphim writes that the field of intelligence assessment seems to be witnessing a paradigm shift, as evidenced by recent definitions of giftedness(Maker, 1993; Renzulli, 1979), the emergence of nontraditional theories of intelligence(Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1991), and the rise of alternative assessment methods, namely performance-based assessments(Maker 1993; Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, 1996).
-----
:May be better in a subarticle, maybe moved there, but should certainly not be removed completely.Ultramarine 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not deleted. Your comment is right under it. I moved it here because it's good material, just not for this article. As with the other material I moved from the article to talk, I did so specifically so that it could be addressed without being lost (i.e., forgotten - nothing is ever lost). --W.R.N. 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not given any good reason for deleting this sourced material directly relating to intelligence and race. You personally do not think MI theories are important; not anonymous scholarly authors state otherwise. Maybe it should be moved to a subarticle, like Research, Interpretations, or Explanations. But until then, do not remove, otherwise anything, no matter how important or well-sourced, can be removed from any article simply by moving it to the talk page.Ultramarine 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about moving it to the explanations article with a brief mention here? Ultramarine 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move it wherever it's important, but it's not important here. In case it wasn't clear, my argument is based solely on the actual article content we're currently dealing with. If it turns out that there's a lot to say about MI theories, then it would be important, but having it in background now is clearly not appropriate (per NPOV-weight). I would think that mention of MI would be about "test data" but I have no particularly strongly formed beliefs about that. Perhaps explanations, but that article is currently overburdened. --W.R.N. 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple intelligences

message: Not everyone who signed on for the mediation has added their positions - just a reminder to please weigh in, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: the text is non-neutral, possibly OR, but also unnecessary as it seems to be redundant with the content of the sections in research. if it is meant to be background, and if that background is necessary, then it should be reworked. the aim of any reworking would should be to shift to 2ndary sources, rather than primary sources as it currently does. this will help balance it as the 2ndary sources will take a broader view than the primary sources used here. --W.R.N. 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourced material. May be better in a subarticle, but should certainly not be removed completely.Ultramarine 14:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it's not clear, IMO, this material is (1) not a summary of anything actually in the subarticles and (2) not particularly salvageable from an NPOV perspective. I moved it here so those issues could be addressed. There's no good reason to add it back -- WP is not an indiscriminate collection of "facts". --W.R.N. 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is something not in a subarticle, it should be moved, not deleted. Will do so shortly.Ultramarine 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  research intro 

message: Race and intelligence research tries to measure the gaps between different races or ethnicities and to find the causes for these gaps. Average test scores of races or ethnicities varies depending on the method and setting used to test intelligence,Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) studied a group of Brazilian street children. The investigation found that the same children who are able to do the mathematics needed to run their street businesses were often unable to do mathematics in a formal setting. See: Street Mathematics and School Mathematics By Terezinha Nunes, David William Carraher, Analucia Dias Schliemann  the health and economic situation of the test takersOlness, K.  "Effects on brain development leading to cognitive impairment: a worldwide epidemic," Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 24, no. 2 (2003): 120–30., the presence of stereotype threat, and the period in history when the test was performed. Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples William T. Dickens and James R. Flynn. Oct. 2006 Some studies have shown that gaps in test scores are closing, while other researchers write that the gaps have stopped closing in some nations. 
Some explanations for the causes of the gaps found relate to cultural factors,Ogbu JU (1978). Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. health,See Health and intelligence testing situations, stereotype threat,Claude M. Steele, The Atlantic Monthly, August 1999 Thin Ice: Stereotype Threat and Black College Students and other environmental factors.
:Sourced material. May be better in a subarticle, but should certainly not be removed completely.Ultramarine 14:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it's not clear, IMO, this material is (1) not a summary of anything actually in the subarticles and (2) not particularly salvageable from an NPOV perspective. I moved it here so those issues could be addressed. There's no good reason to add it back -- WP is not an indiscriminate collection of "facts". --W.R.N. 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is something not in a subarticle, it should be moved, not deleted. Will do so shortly.Ultramarine 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article 

message: there shouldn't be a separate section for this. when sternberg et al. write that Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. they are talking about the same topic as the "geneticists" described in the section above. with the sections merged, effort should be made to condense the material into tighter and more general summaries. leave the details for the race article. --W.R.N. 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  race - social contruct section 

message: I'm no intelligence expert, and can't be bothered to try to follow all the lengthy discussion on this page, but surely the intro's claim that the following is "controversial" is false:
:that intelligence is quantitatively measurable (see psychometrics) by modern tests and is dominated by a unitary general cognitive ability
No doubt a few people reject this but surely this is the mainstream view among intelligence researchers, and so (even if not 'universal') is not 'controversial'? (The opposing view might however be characterized as 'controversial' for all I know.) Ben Finn 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro again

message: Paragraph 2 of this section is mostly a repetition of things that have already been listed in paragraph 1. Whoever wrote this section, please fix it so that unneeded repetitions are eliminated and yet it still represents what you intended to convey. P0M 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Research 

message: Twin studies are an important part of arguments concerning the heritability of intelligence.  There are some sources I want to draw to contributors' attention. Given past conflicts and current mediation, I will leave it to you to decide how and where to incorporate these into this or linked articles.
*Thomas Bouchard Jr., David T. Lykken, Matthew MgGue, Nany Segal, and Augke Tellegen, 1990 "Sources of Human Psychological Differences: the Minnesota Studies of Twins Reared part" Science Vol. 250 pp. 223-228 - analysis of 56 sets of identical twins reared apart; includes analysis of the rearing environments of the twins in the samples assessing 9 different environmental factors; found a mild (very mild) correlation between rearing environments i.e. twins reared apart were nevertheless reared in comparable environments meaning similarities in IQ results were not purely genetic ... revises heritability from .69 to .66
*Nancy Segal 1999 Entwined lives: Twins and What they tell us about Human Behavior pp. 135-136 addresses differences between results from comparing identical and fraternal twins; suggests heritability of about .74 or .75
*Kathleen McCartney, Monica Harris, Frank Bernieri 1990 "Growing up and Growing Apart: A Developmental Metaanalysis of Twin Studies" Psychological Bulletin Vol 107 pp 226-237 and Eric Turkheimer, Andreana Haley, Mary Waldron, Brian D'Onofrio, and Irving Gottesman (2003) "Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children" Psychological Science Vol 14: 623-628 - detail the extent to which family environment and impoverished enviornments contribute substantially to intelligence.
These seem like recent, well-considered studies that merit consideration somewhere, in this set of debates. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this is in the explanations article directly or by proxy. At this point in the science, the heritability of IQ under common conditions and for common populations is nailed down pretty accurately from multiple angles. --W.R.N. 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  concerning twin studies and heritability 

message: i think the article is a mess. --W.R.N. 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not make this a helpful comment?  Specify what you think the main problems are, and bring it up with the mediator? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through the article, looking only at the topic sentences, to get a fast overview. I found little to quarrel with. So why don't you tell the rest of us what makes the article a mess. Is it content? Organization? Tone? Or what?  P0M 04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  an unhelpful comment 

message: The current text says: 
 overall the culture-only hypothesis is not "progressive" but "degenerating" >
What could cause a hypothesis to degenerate?
Could the writer have been trying to express the idea that some hypotheses cause people or culture to make progress and other hypotheses cause people or cultures to degenerate?  Those hypotheses must be really powerful stuff if that is what is meant. 
The reader should not have to guess about this kind of thing — particularly if it has any intrinsic value. P0M 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is from the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos. See Lakatos#Research_programmes. He showed that in some cases one research programme can be described as progressive while its rivals are degenerative. A progressive research programme is marked by its growth, along with the discovery of stunning novel facts, development of new experimental techniques, more precise predictions, etc. A degenerative research program is marked by lack of growth, or growth of the protective belt that does not lead to novel facts. --W.R.N. 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the average well-informed presumed to know this idea pertinent to relative degrees of success of research programs and then to be able to apply them in some appropriate way to a single hypothesis? P0M 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless or at least vapid sentence