Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 7

message: Dear Talk page: I'm not a usual participant in this article (Race and intelligence), but I just today got an email on that subject relating a study that might be helpful, and I shall pass it along:
Found at: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Are_Jews_Smarter$.asp the bottom line is that there may be evidence of certain Jews being smarter (or not), but that this is not the main issue that should be of importance to Jewish people. (The article is from a Jewsish site.)
I was just passing through and noticed this Wikipedia article. By the way, I agreed with the AISH.com article and responded as such in an email of feedback:
Subject: You forgot Jer 9:23, which summarizes your article 
Date: 6/22/2005 6:56:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time 
From: Gww1210@aol.com 
To: TellUs@aish.com 
Regarding: "Are Jews Smarter?" by Rabbi Avi Shafran (Published Sunday, 19 June 2005), AISH newsletter:
 
I enjoyed this article, but you all forgot the "key" scripture that addresses and underscores the point of your article Namely, this scripture is Jeremiah 9:23 (shown here in the New International Version) - and it says: "This is what the LORD says: 'Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches'."
 
Even as your article says: "It should impel us to teach our children, whether they are grappling with school, marriage or children of their own, that it isn't genius that most matters but generosity; not the clever who deserve praise but the conscientious. Let us teach them, in other words, to not let intelligence go to their heads, when only goodness, in the end, is important."
 
("It" above referred to the paper published in Cambridge University's Journal of Biosocial Science that sought to better understand the prevalence of certain genetic disease among Ashkenazic Jews and its possible connection to intelligence.)
Gordon Wayne Watts http://GordonWatts.com <P>
Regardless of whether this one article is useful, I hope it is interesting, and as well, I hope it reminds you of other cool stuff on the Internet. Take care, --GordonWattsDotCom 12:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found an article that might be helpful 

message: Some folks seem not to realize or admit that "race" vs "IQ" or "wealth" vs "nutrition" may describe the exact same abstract disparity. Have you considered this possibility?  Many scientists have, but, random joe wikipedia user would not know that after reading this article.  Given this scientific fact that the  disparity is larger and more abstract than just "race" vs "IQ" why do some people and this article repeatedly only focus on just one pair method of description?  An abstract disparity does exist but words used to describe it have to be neutral and certainly shouldn't hint at unscientific conclusions by only framing an abstract issue one way.  There is no scientific or otherwise consensus to present this abstract disparity exclusively in terms of "race" and "IQ".  Why did someone hurriedly create redirects from Nutrition and intelligence to Race and intelligence when I offhandedly suggested it above?  zen master    T  05:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you could communicate your position more clearly.  All the concerns you express appear to be addressed in the article, and at great well-written length.  Even issues about the validity of race as used in these studies are addressed.  Hopefully, we have progressed beyond studies of this association, and on to the issues of identifying genes that explain some of the individual variation in intelligence.  Hopefully, any variations in gene frequency between the races will speed discovery in this science that promises such benefits.  I wouldn't be surprised if the wealth and nutrition influences you are curious about, to the extent they are also genetically influenced, have explanatory value for part of the genetic component of intelligence.  Would you be surprised if there are genetic variations in the handling of nutrients, in risk taking or courage, in avariciousness?  I wouldn't, the suprise instead would be if there weren't variations, not just between individuals, but between races or populations.  For facts about such variations to be more than mere curiousities, they should contribute to the discovery and elucidation of the mechanisms of the relevant genes.--Silverback 08:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
----
I would love to read Nutrition and intelligence, and I assume most of the other editors on this page would, too. Zen, you seem to assume that the editors on this page focus on Race and intelligence out of malice. I'm not sure that is so (in any case, it's not a helpful position). There are a ton of  related articles that I would love to read. Some are still in their infancy, others don't exist: Sex and intelligence, Genes and intelligence, Nutrition and intelligence, Nurture and intelligence (including Playing Mozart to your unborn child and intelligence) and whatnot. Oh for Education and intelligence! For some of these issues, there is quite a lot of scientific data, others are just hunches. Some of the articles will be as strong as the present one, others will be speculation. But by all means research them, write them; I am confident the editors from this page will help. And if you (or anybody else) is up to the task of writing a comprehensive overview of all factors that may correlate with (or even cause) intelligence, I will rejoice. 
But this page is about Race and intelligence. There is a lot to be said, and a lot to be learned about it. It's important. And it's extremely well presented in this article. Arbor 07:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Why did someone create Nutrition and intelligence as a redirect to here?   How can this article be "well presented" given the misuse of language?  There is no scientific method here. zen master    T  07:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Let me cut in here:) To answer your question: the redirect was made by User:gracefool, I don't know why. He vote keep on the VfD, but thought this article is very POV. Arbor 08:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm glad you mentioned scientific method, ZM, let's focus on that for a while. Can we have a discussion on that topic without your going off on what you feel are the demerits of this article? If you can't then I'll go back to working on my book. P0M 08:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so let's focus on applying the scientific method to language neutrality.  Do you see the potential for confusing cause and effect by describing a diparity only in X, Y terms when Y also happens to be a cause?  Do you acknowledge the abstract nature of the disparity? zen master    T  08:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that is going off on what you think are the demerits of the article. What I had in mind was finding out whether it is your understanding that a theory can be proven. P0M 08:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The disparity is abstract and WP should not use misleading language