Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 45

message: We must not write a long scientific journal article, because race and intelligence is not a purely scientific topic. It is also a social and a historical topic.  This article should not attempt to prove or disprove one (or more than one) scientific hypothesis on race and intelligence, it should, rather, clearly explain what those hypothesis are, as well has the history of their development, naming the major researchers, and academics who have proposed them. It should give a clear overview of the points of disagreement. To this end, I think that the chart proposed by JK above, separates out most of the finer points of dispute, since it shows what a huge question the utility of "race" is for science.
The balance we are seeking in this article involves acknowledging that the "sciencetificness" of even having a debate over these questions is also a major point of contention. And doing this without belittling that perspective as "unscientific."futurebird 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The utility of race does have appliation in the human genome, metabolism, physiology, etc. as far as health and medicine, but comparisons are linked to disease and health risks. Comparing IQ or best color vision or some other trait has no implicit value, but you are right about the social dimension where some people give it value.  GetAgrippa 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we ask: if 'race science' is science?

message: My personal view is that the dfferences are substantially cultural, social, and environmental.  I believe if there are any genetic causes they're minor enough that they can be fixed in a few generations.  I seriously advise against modifying the article organization, as it seems its a bit POV to make history get its own section, when its really part of the background.  
I got tired of editing this article, but if you want to be a soldier, here's some material (ammunition?) for you:
*IQ of poor hispanic kids raised 2-3 points over a short period of time simply by giving them vitamins.
*Breastfeeding caused "An 8.3 point advantage (over half a standard deviation) in IQ remained even after adjustment for differences between groups in mother's education and social class".  Blacks rarely breastfeed: .  This graph underexaggerates the effect the breastfeeding discrepancy has on the IQ gap, because:
:*the study on breastfeeding actually requires that the breastmilk is a significant part of the diet, which is very rare for black infants in comparison to other "races".
:*Its a graph of only in-hospital breastfeeding.  When people are in the hospital they're more likely to do whats good for their baby than what they'd do unwatched at home.
:*Many of these IQ studies have been based on people born several years ago, sometimes even decades ago.  As you can see from the upward moving graph, the discrepancy was even higher then.
:*For more info on breast-feeding and race/ethnicity, do this simple google search.  Make sure to only use the authoritative sources. 
*Several studies, such as this one have found that lead poisoning at a degree of 10 µg/dL caused an average 5.8 point IQ decline.  Blacks have always had more exposer to lead than white on average, although for kids born today today the issue is largely negligible.  However it's still significant because many of these IQ tests were performed on people in periods when lead poisoning was much more prevalent.
:*One thing to note is that this is a significant factor even if environment is controlled for by twin studies or adoption studies, because the early home environment has the greatest affect.
:I'll add more as I find it. Message me on my talk page if you need more "ammo".--Urthogie 05:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jensen (1998) has a lengthy discussion of non-genetic biological factors that could contribute to the BW gap. I used that text to write Race_and_intelligence_%28Explanations%29#Nongenetic_biological_factors long ago. There hasn't been much done with it since. Jensen is a very prolific writer and he may have written about this in other texts which could be used to expand the section. --WD RIK NEW 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Health and intelligence may be the venue for some of this. --WD RIK NEW 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources on environment

message: A reference should be made of the Science rebuttal to Lahn in Science 22 December 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5807, p. 1872. BRUCE LAHN PROFILE:
Links Between Brain Genes, Evolution, and Cognition Challenged
Michael Balter for NPOV. Rushton also addressed it in: Rushton JP, Vernon PA, Bons TA. No evidence that polymorphisms of brain regulator genes Microcephalin and ASPM are associated with general mental ability, head circumference or altruism. Biol Lett. 2007 Jan 23;
I noted the debate is framed as an American issue but is that neccessarily true: Psychol Rep. 2006 Aug;99(1):191-6. Association of race and color with mean IQ across nations.Templer DI, Arikawa H. 
I came across this article which I think exemplifies the perspective issue in this kind of research:Cooper RS. Race and IQ: Molecular genetics as deus ex machina. Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):71-6. PMID: 15641923 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. 
This is an excellent article by the way! Kudos to all the authors! It is well referenced and generally balanced. It maybe too much detail for an encyclopedia. I noted in the Talk that original research was an issue and I hope that has been eliminated as an issue. GetAgrippa 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GetAgrippa, it seems to me that there is no way to draw on this literature in this context without violating WP:NOR.  Are there secondary sources that have made connections between these findings and specific debates on race and intelligence?  If so, can you single those out?  otherwise, I would suggest that some of the articles may be appropriate to incorporate into the article on race, others into the article on intelligence, but here we have to be careful about NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bruce Lahn

message: thanks. it's pointless as it is now.--Hollerbackgril 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pg num on footnote 84 

message: This article has been protected for nine days and there have been practically no specific proposals for moving ahead.  This talk page is 139 kb long - 100 kb too long - and I have recently archived over 200 kb of talk!  This is more than enough discussion to resolve any one issue.  It can only mean that people are repeating themselves, keep raising tangents, or are adding talk that is not constructive.  I have thus put in a request for comments here.  12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any precedent for this.  Is it allowed? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think time will make any difference here, Kevin. This isn't not a matter of "heads cooling down" --everyone has been remarkably civil. If we wait too long people may leave, and the article will remain in its present state. Then new people will find it raise the issue again... and this cycle will never end. We need to make a clean break from that pattern. Do you have any other suggestions? futurebird 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Clearly there is civility, but I don't think that minds are being changed, and are not likely to be without surgery.  My comment was a bit tongue in cheek, as an opposite approach to the action-call for by Slrubenstein.  I think that this article will be a constant source of frustration as it is inherently emotionally charged.  This knowledge can be a weapon for bigots but also a tool for those who want to build a more tolerant society.  It may explain why many simplistic social programs fail.  At this point I'm fairly satisfied that the article presents both sides, since no one seems satisfied but no one is seeking drastic measures.  I had mentioned that we might build a replacement article somewhere, which would demonstrate the ideas mentioned here -- in essence a prototype.  Perhaps in someone's personal space etc.  --Kevin Murray 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Breaking the article in to smaller parts will just leave a bunch of little orphans which will be highly susceptible to constant AfD attacks.  The individual AfD debates will most likely draw a lot of politically-correct support for deletion and defenders will be painted as racist no matter what the motivation for preserving the article.  Along with the practicality of Slrubenstein's suggestion, we must face the realities of politics within the WP infrastructure.  Please keep the article together.  --Kevin Murray 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please take a look at Intelligence quotient and tell me how much of your idea of Factors that influence IQ test results it meets. I suspect it already has most of the content you expect.--Ramdrake 17:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Jamal, can you be more specific?  The reason why the article is protected (locked) is specifically so people can't just drop-in and make radical deletions etc. without forming a consensus with other editors first.  This discussion page is the forum through which you should express your concerns and try to build a consensus for change.  If you bring some new or better information the administrator will probably work with you to make the article better.  Good luck and welcome to the discussion.  --Kevin Murray 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment