Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 22

message: I have not watched this article recently.  However, I know it is a long article that underwent conversion of footnotes/references to m:Cite.php format relatively recently.
I have been working on a semi-bot to aid in fixing problems that come up with m:Cite.php usage; in the future, also to assist more in correcting such issues and/or to convert true citations (as opposed to annotational footnotes) into Harvard style referencing.  FWIW, I tend to think a hybrid approach involving separate named citational references and annotational footnotes is a good (maybe the best) approach for scientific articles: a toy example that illustrates this lives at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes.
In any case, you can see the diagnosis by Citation Tool.  To use the tool to analyze other articles, take a look at User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/citation tool.  The tool will get better, but it already identifies some problems that need addressing in this article; I welcome feedback during development of the semi-bot (or thereafter... I guess development of such things never really stops). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference problems 

message: This paper...
*  
...finds an assocation between the minor allele of SNP rs1018381 and lower g. 
The minor allele frequencies for this SNP in the HapMap populations are:
 0.308 YRI: Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria
 0.091 JPT: Japanese in Tokyo, Japan
 0.056 CHB: Han Chinese in Beijing, China
 0.075 CEU: CEPH (Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe)
This is probably too new and too unreplicated to warrant inclusion, but it's something to look out for in the future. --Rikurzhen 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DTNBP1 

message: "Moreover, although it may appear paradoxical, a goal of social egalitarianism is to raise the genetic contribution to intelligence to as high as possible, by minimizing environmental inequalities and any negatively IQ-impacting cultural differences (The Blank Slate, 106-107). If such conditions were achieved, any remaining group IQ differences would then be 100% hereditary: the only remaining factor that could potentially contribute to race-based outcome differences."
There would still be variance due to micro-enviromental factors. I believe Jensen wrote negatively about this kind of statement in "The g-Factor", but I don't remember exactly what. I'll see if I can find it when I get the time. Elamere
:I didn't find it, but the point is that (according to Jensen) between-family differences, which origins from factors like parents socio-economic status, disappears in adulthood and leaves only differences from genetics and within-family differences. So, in this sense, we have already reached the utopia of social egalitarianism (well, except that malnutrition and similar micro-enviromental factors still is more common in poor families). Elamere
"any remaining group (but not individual) IQ differences would then be 100% hereditary" Yes, I think that remedies it. Thanks. Elamere
...I now realize that was exactly what it said in the first place. Silly me. However, shouldn't the correlation be less than 1.00 due to the randomness of the distribution of micro-envionmental factors? Or will the randomness average out for large populations? Elamere 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True "randomness" would average out in populations of millions. There're lots of reasons why true randomness might not describe micro-environments, but one would think that it should even out pretty well. A gene-microenvironment correlation would skew results, but you might subsume that under a broad sense definition of heredity. --Rikurzhen 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hereditability 

message: In Race_and_intelligence#Media_portrayal, the second phrase, "A 2004 study found widespread research misinterpretation regarding the study's specific focus". The two instances of the word "study" refers to different studies if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps something along those lines is in order:
:A 1995 study found that introducing stereotype threat to a test-taking environment increased the existing gap between Blacks or Whites in relation to Whites or Asians respectively, and has thus been offered as a potential contributor to the gap. However, according to a 2004 study, 88% of accounts in the popular media, 91% in scientific journals, and 67% in psychology textbooks misinterpreted the findings as that eliminating the introduced stereotype threat eliminated the Black-White gap, when in fact the students had already been matched according to prior scores.[23] The authors suggest the appeal of the misinterpreted findings may have been a factor, and that such research results in general may in this way be systemically more readily accepted.
This may leave an ambiguity in the use of the word "authors" though. An altogether different question from me as a new wiki-user, why the linking of years (eg. 2004)?  Elamere 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good fix. The reference, currently in a footnote, can be moved back inline to fix the ambiguity on "authors". On year linking: it's a matter of dispute. Given the power of any sizeable minority in WP, it's one of those things where people do it preemptively to avoid debate even if they don't think it's worthwhile otherwise. --Rikurzhen 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: By convention, we archive everything. You are right in observing that for certain sections (like this one) that serves no purpose. Still, I suggest you leave it as it is. Arbor 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error due to summary-editing? 

message: *POV: Removed
"Scientist in their publications give operational definitions to the groups that they study and describe how the samples are drawn. The populations used may vary according to the purpose of the study, and there is no universally agreed upon subdivision of the races of man. For example, the very large collaboration of geneticists known as the HapMap project, which used four populations for its first extensive database of SNPs, studied not "Mongoloids" but rather Japanese from Tokyo and Han Chinese. Other parallel studies are examining other racial divisions than the four frequently mentioned groups, and there is no supposition that there is an exhaustive, unique list of the races of man. In most studies of intelligence, race and ethnicity are used interchangably, and individuals are categorized by self-identification."Ultramarine 12:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (done) 

message: * Dubious "In a 1987 survey of scholars in specialties related to IQ" The scholars were psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, educators, and geneticists. This information has repeatedly been deleted. Stating "scholars in specialties related to IQ" is at least misleading, sociologists and educators may well know nothing about this. It is implied that this is the opinion of the researchers on IQ and this survey is used as a evidence against the APA consensus statement "what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." Ultramarine 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 (done) 

message: *POV: Hidden counter-argument Again, regarding this 1987 survery. Hidden in footnotes in one place or not mentioned at all at the other place "Whether this still applies today is unknown." Ultramarine 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 (done)

message: *Original reserach. Regarding studies arguing against the genetic explanation, this is stated without source: "Hereditarians argue that these studies are flawed, or that they do support the partly-genetic hypothesis." Ultramarine 13:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5

message: *POV: Repeatedly deleted "in Northern Ireland the IQ gap between Protestants and Catholics is as large as that between Blacks and Whites in the US."
** Has anyone seen this written anywhere but on that partisan website? --Rikurzhen 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor Richard Lynn said the Scots average IQ of 97 was well below the England and Wales average of 100.5 and on a par with the Republic of Ireland. London and the south-east of England scored top in the UK, with an average IQ of 102. 
This is even more reason to want to find independent reliable verification of this 15 point gap claim. --Rikurzhen 06:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6

message: *Dubious "Indeed, even proponents of a partly genetic interpretation of the IQ gap, such as Rushton and Jensen (2005a) and Gottfredson (2005b), argue that their interpretation does not in itself demand any particular policy response" They have in other places argued against for example school integration and affirmative action.Ultramarine 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7

message: *Dubious or Npov"race differences are most pronounced on tests that are the best measures of g, which also show the highest heritability (see Spearman's hypothesis)" Very misleading, from the subarticle "Dolan and Hamaker 2001 have reanalyzed the data from several previous studies (Jensen and Reynolds 1982; Naglieri and Jensen 1987) that used the statistical method invented by Jensen (the method of correlated vectors) with a more recent and improved method (multigroup confirmatory factor analysis). Their results statistically were consistent with the weak form of Spearman's hypothesis that black-white group differences were predominantly on the g factor. However, their analysis of the data set failed to "establish Spearman's hypothesis as an empirically established fact". They also speculate that "it is possible that the analysis of all available data sets ... will demonstrate that a model incorporating the weak version of Spearman's hypothesis provides the best description of the data."[8] This leaves the validity of Spearman's hypothesis, considered a central justification for the genetic explanation, an unresolved question." Ultramarine 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9 (Done but note how Rushton and Jensen misrepresent this!) 

message: *Dubious or POV"regression to differing means for different races (No known environmental factor can have this effect)." Even Rushton and Jensen admit that this is possible.Ultramarine 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (No known environmental factor can have this effect) is AFAIK false. It's more like, no environmental theory would have predicted this effect, but only in the sibling regression data, the parent-child regression would be predicted I would think. --Rikurzhen 06:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Ultramarine 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 (done)

message: *POV: RemovedWhen Rushton's claimed supporting references were examined they were found to include a nonscientific semipornographic book and an article in Penthouse Forum. Ultramarine 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that those two non-scientific references agreed with the results of his and others' studies on variation in penis size among ethnicities.  Variation in penis size is not discussed in this article.--Nectar 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Rushton thinks it is related to IQ. Ultramarine 07:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we ever reference the characteristics Rushton surveys that appear in the same order as IQ differences, such as primary and secondary sexual characteristics, we can rely on the hundreds of scientific studies he references, rather than on a penthouse article.  Problem solved?--Nectar 10:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, Rushton's claims have been thoroughly debunked. For example, the latest meta-analysis find no evidence for his claim that blacks are more psychopathic. Ultramarine 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rushton surveyed the studies available on more than 60 characteristics.  The issue is probably more complicated than blanket condemnations. For example: "The World Health Organization bases its specifications for condom width on consumer preference and penis size, citing three studies. Taken together, the studies show significant variations in penis size within all population groups, but also indicate that men of African descent on average have a slightly wider and longer penis size, Caucasian men have a medium size, and Asian men a slightly narrower and shorter size. (WHO)"Family Health International --Nectar 13:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously no one denies that there are physical differences. What is serious is the unscientific methods that Rushton uses, which the above is just one example of. Ultramarine 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As evidence of Rushston's sources it is  revealing. Especially as he is the head of the Pioneer Fund. Personally, I would not trust anything funded from that fund until duplicated by independent researchers.Ultramarine 06:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cernovsky doesn't make this point explicitly (I've never read the original piece by Rushton that includes these references) so I'm not sure it's safe to connect the dots that he doesn't connect for us given what Nectar has indicated here. --Rikurzhen 06:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 14

message: *POV: Removed
The text states: "Some scientists, including W. D. Hamilton, [24] considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century," and a long quote in the footnotes. Exluded is " (and controversial, thought that the origin of the AIDS epidemic lay in oral polio vaccines)," Ultramarine 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamilton's support for the OPV AIDS hypothesis doesn't seem to deserve mention in any summary of his notability that's less than one paragraph long, and it's irrelevant to this topic.--Nectar 07:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV to have a long statement glorifying him and not the opposite view. Ultramarine 07:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamilton is, in fact, a prestigious evolutionary theorist.  If a reference discussing his overbearing controversiality can be provided, we can continue this point.--Nectar 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His theory is certainly controversial and proved false.Ultramarine 06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A scientific theory being wrong doesn't constitute a claim that one of the most prestigious recent evolutionary theorists is "controversial".--Nectar 11:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 15

message: *POV: Arguments selectively hidden in footnotes
"It is well established that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa, and decreases with distance from Africa. One study estimates that only 6.3% of the total human genetic diversity is explained by race." Ultramarine 11:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an argument if everyone agrees on a point. Moreover, those figures are not something that anyone who doesn't already know these facts is capable of interpreting. Unless you're going to append a description of the subtleties of the Fst statistic, then there's no point in describing exactly how much variation exists where -- unless population bottlenecks and demographic history is somehow important to this topic. The actual claims made in plain language are found in the main text as on the basis of that more genetic variation exists within such races than between them and racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries. An Fst of .07-.15 is the genetic counterpart to the observation that most phenotypic variance in single complex traits occurs within familes, not between races -- skin color and a few others being the major exceptions. --Rikurzhen 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moreover, those figures are not something that anyone who doesn't already know these facts is capable of interpreting." Then explain in the article. Let the reader decide for themselves. When someone starts arguing that some information must be hidden, then we are in dangerous territory. Obviously the information that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa has important consequences for sweeping generalizations about IQ in Africa from a few studies in a few locations.Ultramarine 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a virtually infinite collection of facts that can be claimed to be tangetially related to this topic but which are not actually important (e.g. any sentence from race). In a summary style section, the burden is on you to demonstrate that your addition is a "key" fact. I've already annotated the footnote to explain what the numbers mean -- their common sense interpretation is that on average alleles will be in a 70/30 versus 30/70 distribution between two continental-level populations. --Rikurzhen 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, obviously the information that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa has important consequences for sweeping generalizations about IQ in Africa from a few studies in a few locations, or from the US IQ scores.Ultramarine 06:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. When is the average IQ of Africans ever inferred from a "few" studies? For Lynn's latest book, the plurality of studies were of Africans. 2. What makes you think that greater genetic diversity indicates greater phenotypic diversity? Chimps are 2x more genetically diverse than the totality of humans while being obviously less phenotypically diverse. Europeans are in fact more phenotypically diverse for many phenotypes (e.g. hair and eye color). Moreover, the gradient of genetic diversity is not profound. (Of course, there are some isolated populations that are quite homogenous, but most Eurasian populations are not much less diverse than most African populations.) The bulk of genetic diversity has no phenotypic impact. Who has claimed that this is kind of diversity is important for race and IQ? --Rikurzhen 06:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 17

message: #8 and #9 appear to be the points still disputed; do people think we can just remove those two sentences until the points are resolved, rather than label the entire article disputed?--Admissions 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot remove those two sentences, as they are key information. I would repeat again that personal disbelief in this context is not a basis for NPOV objections. As written, the text is accurate and NPOV -- it's written as x is cited by hereditarians as support for the genetic hypothesis, not as x is evidence for the genetic hypothesis. Even if we could demonstrate on the talk page that they were mistaken, we would still have to write what we've written. Unless some has something else to object to, we appear to be done with the tag. --Rikurzhen 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly still dispute all points excepted as stated in them. Ultramarine 00:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've had time to make 200 edits since conversation stopped here.  If you have any reason for the NPOV tag to remain, please bring it up in a timely manner (remember, this article is live). Cheers, Nectar 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that the article-level tag is being overused.  I continue to have some issues with the article, and it tends to creep in the direction of pro-hereditarian and reductionist POV relatively quickly if Ultramarine, me, or a couple others don't object strongly to many such additions.  Nonetheless, slapping an NPOV or fact tag the whole article because of some relatively limited issues goes much too far.  The bulk of the article has remained fairly factual and neutrally POV.  I think using section-pov tags, at most, is much more appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Serious issues remains regarding the whole article as noted above. That the opposing side have written the last word regarding some dispute do not mean I agree. However, I agree that maybe it would be better to have specific tags in each section that describes  exactly what the dispute is about. Ultramarine 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You have had time to correct the errors and pov but have not done so. The disagreement remains. The editors who are pushing this are mainly those who seem to spend all their time editing race related articles from a particular POV. Ultramarine 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: correct the errors and pov -- Oh come now, that's begging the question. I don't think there are errors or POV problems, and it seems that Nectar is generally of the same opinion. It's not just that I think there are POV problems but disagree with your solution, it's that what you call POV issues I think aren't even POV issues. Disagreeing with a published opinion (so long as its attributed and neutrally described) is not a POV problem, it's completely outside the pervue of WP. The other issue seems to be that you would like to see each hereditarian argument indiviudally refuted, which is simply impossible given space constraints; the sub-article where that is done is actually (slightly) bigger than this entire article. Accepting this constract, I am satisfied with seeing the best arguments for culture and the best arguments for genetics written as they are with a single instance of noting the disagreement. Anyone who wants to read the subarticle can, but otherwise they should just get the executive summary. --Rikurzhen 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: When editors on both sides of an issue disagree with a tag, it's the responsibility of the claimant to advance his or her own arguments and thereby convince other editors.  If you're concerned about editors' POVS, ironically (given the disputes that sometimes have occurred), this article has been written entirely by left-of-center editors, with the exception of a couple of editors who periodically have participated on the talk page.--Nectar 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove the disputed tags until the conflict is resolved. The claim that the group of editors trying to remove the arguments against the genetic explanation is "left-of-center" is strange and irrelevant for factual accuracy. Also, do you know each other in real life so you can make this statement? Looking at your edits, you seems to edit mostly race related articles from a particular POV.Ultramarine 11:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your understanding of these matters remains unique, and other editors seem to disagree. Maybe we can find some common ground with a The factual accuracy and neutrality of this page is disputed by User:Ultramarine and link to a separate subpage that presents your viewpoints. Clearly, the current modus operandi has come to an impasse. Without involving external arbitration (which does not seem to match the style of the current editors) I cannot see how your "disputed" tags improve the situation. Other suggestions are welcome, of course. Arbor 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss the issues noted above. Ultramarine 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the above comment's not worth responding to, but I will say as a supporter of science you should be glad there are users representing the positions held by scientists in the so-called "realist" camp (e.g. Pinker, Hamilton, Ernst Mayr), even if you disagree with those positions.  Nobody wants Wikipedia to only represent one side of science. Beyond that, note that the disputed tag is in the same place it's been since the dispute started (above the table of contents).--Nectar 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a little less glad when said supporters of the so-called "realist" camp act as though they own the article. Several points have been raised questioning aspects of this research (the meaning of "g" as a single-number measurement, its relation to what is called intelligence in layman's terms, the representativity of the "world-wide IQ samples" used in most of the research, the very meaning and appropriateness from the viewpoint of genetics of the racial tags as they've been historically defined). These are all valid and are still hotly debated in the world of science. To say otherwise because of one or a few studies doesn't represent reality. The AAA refutes the very meaning of races as we've historically known them . The APA, in its consensus statement on the Bell Curve said about the Black-White IQ difference: There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. These are the facts. For these reasons, the neutrality of this article, in trying to positively substantiate a genetic cause to a measured difference in IQ numbers between racial groups remains very much in question. --Ramdrake 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But, Ramdrake, all these points are acknowledged in the article. There is certainly more room devoted to non-hereditary positions (relative to their exposure in the scientific literature) than vice versa; the article "errs on the side" of Sternberg and others (while being very clear about labelling their position as a minority POV—as it should).  In any case, almost every POV here is expressed as "X says Y, but Z says !Y" instead of "Y is the truth" or just "Y" (which is what Evolution does, and gets away with it.) So the R&I presentation is the very definition of NPOV. It certainly makes no attempt to hide any controversies—on the contrary, we have whole sections and subarticles devoted to presenting just these controversies. Arbor 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbor, I am quite sure this is how you honestly see the article. I get another feel when I read the article; that's my honest opinion. You feel the article is balanced as it presents both sides equally. I feel the argument is unbalanced as I don't think the genetic side deserves as much exposure, as I think there are enough flaws with Lynn's research to make it borderline pseudoscience (this is my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and you have every right to disagree with it), and as it is central to this article, the rest logically follows. If one could devise a warning on this article which says both that it is controversial in subject and that its neutrality can also be controversial depending on one's viewpoint, I would support it. I don't know if you think that would be an improvement. --Ramdrake 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:NPOV, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". A concise description of what NPOV means is found at WP:NPoV#The_neutral_point_of_view. It describes this article precisely. There's probably always room for tweaking the language to squeeze every last bit of individual bias out of the writing, but that's not what you've suggested Ramdrake. What you've suggested is presenting one side of the controversy in less than their best light because you think they're wrong and the other side is right. That, of coures, isn't permissible. --Rikurzhen 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tag

message: Upon review, the 17 points raised in this NPOV dispute appear to have, whether through discussion or altering the article, progressed to the point of not requiring a tag. Editors on both sides have weighed in, expressing that they consider the tag to be unnecessary in relation to the points raised. If any editors have an argument otherwise, please bring it up.--Nectar 06:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I still don't agree yet. --Ramdrake 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before this degenerates into a straw poll: This is not a vote. Nectarflowed is soliciting arguments. Arbor 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I need to expound: I still think the article is slanted towards the concept that there is no serious opposition to the genetic viewpoint, whereas the opposition is there, both from the science and from the lay crowds. It gives the impression that the arguments presented herein have no serious rebuttal. Irrespective of who's right, there is still a very heated controversy over this endeavor, and my impression is that this article doesn't let that transpire. Therefore, I would argue that this article is still not "neutral". I'm working on a small section that I hope will help, though. I just would like us to avoid putting the cart in front of the oxen. --Ramdrake 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're correct that the article does not portray the arguments against a genetic cause neutrally, then that's a serious problem. While you're thinking about this, try to distinguish between the topic of whether a meaningful difference exists and the question of what causes the difference. For example, James Flynn and Arthur Jensen agree on all the data and disagree on how to interpret it. For most questions, they would give the same answer except those relating to cause. I happen to think that Flynn's POV is presented well. --Rikurzhen 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to refer you to the last comment made by Jokestress a couple days ago here. It's just that I feel the same. --Ramdrake 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not good enough. As editors, our only mission is to select among and present published viewpoints. Not yours. And not Jokestress'. I myself have several private opinions about much of this, but I have never lobbied for their inclusion (nor even taken them up on the talk page) — simply have no place on this page: no-one else of significance who has voiced them. So my own POV—brilliant and deep and convincing as I think it is—is underrepresented. That does not make this article !NPOV. Arbor 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that I need to find a published viewpoint that states this article lacks a certain degree of neutrality in its presentation? I don't think that's what you meant to say. This all started when Nectar said that all editors have expressed the view that the tag is now unnecessary. I expressed my view that it is still necessary. When told that just expressing my view was not enough, I explained the reasons for my stance. When told that I should reconsider my view, I brought forth the point that others on this page have expressed just the same opinion (i.e. not all editors think the tag is now unnecessary). Now, I'm being told that pointing to opinions similar to mine on this page is not good enough, that I need to present a published viewpoint. I will reiterate this: I do not support the removal of this tag at this point, and from reading this talk page, I can conclude that one if not several other editors feel the same. I do not think there is consensus to remove yet. --Ramdrake 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I wasn't clear, perhaps. You need to be more concrete. For example, you need to point to a specific (published) POV that is under- or overrepresented. And you cannot point to Jokestress' POV. You can point to Flynn's, or Sternberg's, or Gould's. You correctly point out that Nectar should not have said "All editors think the tag is unnecessary." He should have said "No editor has been able to produce a reason for keeping the tag that a significant number of other editors agree with." Arbor 06:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, "all editors" would be a misreading of my comment. .. Most discussions on Wikipedia don't require tagging the article as being unreliable.. and that's something that Lulu (who has played a significant role on the critical side of this article) seems to agree on.--Nectar 13:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: using Arbor's material, and some of my own, I am writing a bit about "R&I research as pseudoscience". I've been at it for a bit less than a week now, and I expect to be done in no more than a week. The way I see it, once this part is in place, it should go a good length towards redressing what I find is the problem with neutrality. Just please leave the tag one more week, I'll take the onus of addressing the reason why I feel the tag is presently there. When I come up with the section, I will withdraw my objection to removing the tag. If I can't come up with the section in due time, you can still remove the tag as far as I'm concerned. Considering the tag's been up there for a couple of months now, I don't think one more week will kill anyone. What say you? --Ramdrake 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds great. Used like that, the NPOV tag is actually doing something constructive. Arbor 10:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless you have something new to say about #2, that thread appears to be finished. --Rikurzhen 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tag2

message: Here's an idea. Half-baked, like most of my ruminations, but hear me out... The object is to present the view of many anthropologists (and, especially, the majority of cultural anthropologists) in an accessible an readable fashion. (Instead of, as we do now, to acknowledge their viewpoints only in the form "but Z disagrees and says Bla" whenever we have just said "Y says Foo".)
The idea would be to change the Public Controversy section to some title that would also include scientific counterpoints, not only inane media ramblings. (It can be argued, that by reducing R&I-criticism to Joe Public we are purposefully giving that voice to a less than eloquent speaker, thereby denigrating the standpoint.) Let us instead have a paragraph describing clearly the viewpoints held by many, many anthropologists, concordant with the AAA statement or the EncBib presentation.
A way to do that with minimal editing would be to rename Public Controversy into Controversy with subheadings In the media, Anthropology (or Between scientific disciplines or whatever), Accusations of Bias, etc. To be honest, what I would really like to do was to claim something like there being a controversy among scientists that is concordant with the split between cultural anthropologists etc. on one side and population geneticists and psychologists etc. on the other. But I understand that this is a gross simplification and though I would find this presentation helpful to readers,  the charged environment of this article may not benefit from such a claim. (Though we could easily support it with numbers and references.) Arbor 08:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be worthwhile if someone else has already made the observations of such a split. Right now we have Snyderman and Rothman's study to justify a public/expert split. The other survey I've seen only covers the existence or not of biological races, ignoring intelligence, but that still saw only 53% of cultural anthropolgists saying there weren't. The AAA statement would prima facie be material to build on, but I've read it carefully a few times and it appears to only argue (1) against racism (duh!)  and (2) something like race doesn't determine intelligence, which is not what they really want to be arguing. I've not been able to find a good explication of their text in the literature. --Rikurzhen 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Public Controvesy to Controversy and include Anthropologists 

message: The article wheel may be considered racist too, it states the Africans did not have it untill Europeans gave it to them long after its invention.
:And the wheel was also originally unknown in Australia, the Pacific Islands and North America.  Your point? --Ramdrake 13:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the anonymous poster was attempting to make a joke. Harkenbane 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And succeeding. The ridiculous people who call science or philosophy racist when they produce none socially practiced data have completely misunderstood the definition of 'racism' - which is prejudiced - get it - to pre judge - to come to a conclusion despite lacking evidence. Fact and reason aren't to be censored, or slandered whatever they may be. Just as a seperate note, frankly, I see no reason why certain races having lower IQs is any reason for worry, since intelligence should not be the bases for rights (consider Peter Singer's speciesism arguments) - the ridiculous onslaught of the misunderstanding of the tolerance policy is worrying, and needs remedying.otashiro 14:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't think I'd like to have the same rights as a crab or a squirrel, even if I am a bit thick. --Coroebus 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but maintaining a friendly atmosphere on the talk page is an end to achieve that goal. Any comment that does not directly aimed at improving this article in a concrete fashion is better taken to user talk pages or private e-mail. Arbor 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah 

message: Is this section really necessary?  It seems very long and quite off topic, couldn't it be better placed somewhere else (like in the IQ article)? --Coroebus 07:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of the 3 right-most columns of the large table, everything specifically relates to the significance of IQ differences between groups, rather than IQ differences within groups. --Rikurzhen 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is overly long, with a significant number of accompanying tables.  All we're trying to say here is that IQ differences between racial groups could be a cause of differential levels of X (where X is something that correlates with IQ).  This is obviously speculative, and it seems like a hell of a lot of verbiage to say something simple.  --Coroebus 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A massive literature exists to examine this question, and so in the sense that it matters to a Wikipedia article, it's quite important. I personally think there's a progression of discussion thru the issue within the body of that text (rather than a single claim repeated endlessly) but it might be subtle and thus in need of improvement. --Rikurzhen 17:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree that the size of the literature compels us to have such a detailed section.  Few other scientific topics are so detailed, and these often have an even greater literature behind them.  This is already a pretty long article and I don't really see what speculations about what effect 'controlling' for IQ has on divorce rates is really supposed to be telling us here, over and above my '...X' point above, unless we're positing potential effects of a eugenics programme, which we're not. --Coroebus 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments suggest that you're looking at the tables, but not reading the accompany text. Differences in marriage rate, for example, are not eliminated by controlling for IQ, suggesting that differential marriage rates are not due to IQ differences. This research is highly significant as it follows in the pattern of a vast body of social science studies which looked to explain group outcome differenes in terms of SES, with less success than controlling for IQ. More to the point, there's no "Great Wikipedia Paper Shortage" as it is often described. The depth of coverage is anything that's "encyclopedic". If any particular topic is diving too deeply and growing too long, it is best treated by Wikipedia:Summary Style. --Rikurzhen 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as IQ is also correlated with SES you are parcelling out some of the SES effect too are you not? --Coroebus 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're interested, this is a good treatment of the topic for within group variation: Income Inequality and IQ, AEI Press (1998) PDF copy. The trick is to look at siblings with discordant IQs. Of course, it's not discussed in this WP article, as it doesn't get to group differences. --Rikurzhen 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the things you've deleted or commented on come from The Bell Curve (but you can find similar analyses done before and after that publication). The statistic in the first and second tables are from the same dataset, so yes -- regression was done for both blacks and whites. What you called "speculation" is the result of a statistical analysis of a nationally representative sample. Don't mistake within-group and between-group heritability. If all environmental differences are eliminated between groups, the resulting between group heritability would be 100% (correcting for measurement error) while the within group heritabilty might go unchanged. --Rikurzhen 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right about the between-group heritability, although i think in this hypothetical case it is problematic to use heritable as a proxy for genetic given the importance gene-environment interactions are likely to have (i.e., something may well be causally environmental, while being heritable).  With regards to the first table, it says "Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only", I assume significance data relates to the lines about poverty and suchlike, in which case we really need either the overall population data, or preferably the data split by race - because what this section is doing is saying, 'look, if you have a low IQ, like lots of black people do, you are more likely to be poor', but by only using the data from white people you can't say that. --Coroebus 08:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't find the total population data easily available. However, the regressions for blacks and whites are similar (as demonstrated in table 2), such that the white data is a good proxy for the black data. Of the three outcomes given, high school graduation is essentially identical and for the other two IQ actually over predicts black outcomes (blacks score worse than whites of the same IQ). --Rikurzhen 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me get this right, the data for the effect of IQ on social outcomes is based on whites only?  We can't include that here if we're explicitly comparing black and white people and claiming that they will have different outcomes based on IQ!  Do you have the overall or the black only data?--Coroebus 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just going to reiterate, we absolutely cannot include this table if we are only going to use the data from white people for 'significance', you cannot make the implicit claim, 'look, black people score lower on IQ and this means they'll not finish highschool' when your evidence for that is based on white people.  If we can't get data for black people, or at least the whole population I'm going to have to remove this table. --Coroebus 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can "get" all the data from The Bell Curve as well as the NLSY, but not in a way that can be direclty put into this format without doing calculations that are stepping over the WP:NOR line. the regressions will look almost identical for the whole population as the curves for whites because they are the majority (this is empirically verified by the authors of TBC in appendix 4, where you'll find the regression coefficients for the whole population, but not the computed probabilities); the regressions for blacks for these variables are highly congruent with those for whites; where different, the curves for whites usually paint a slightly better picture than reality for blacks. that racial differences exist in these variables before controlling for IQ is also reported in TBC. for high school graduation the average white/black/latino numbers are 84%/73%/65%; for poverty 7%/26%/18%; for MCV index 51%/20%/31%. --Rikurzhen 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, at the very least, we need to say in the box that the 'significance' data for black people are similar.  Otherwise it just looks silly. --Coroebus 08:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to elminate the silly factor. --Rikurzhen 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Within societies 

message: There is substantial overlap in the distribution of IQ scores among individuals of each race.  (p. 357) estimates that in a random sample of equal numbers of US Blacks and Whites, most of variance in IQ would be unrelated to race or social class.Equal-sized random samples of children from California schools were used for this analysis. Social class was rated on a ten-point scale based on parents' education and occupation. Only 30% of total variance in IQ is associated with differences between race and social class, whereas 65% exists within each racial and social class group. The single largest source of IQ variance exists between siblings within the same family. The average IQ difference between two randomly paired people from the U.S. population, one Black and one White, is approximately 20 points. However, by the same method of calculation, the average difference between two random people is approximately 17 points, and the average difference between two siblings is 12 points.
In essays accompanying the publication of The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray argue that whether the cause of the IQ gap is partly genetic or entirely environmental does not really matter because that knowledge alone would not help to eliminate the gap and that knowledge should not impact the way that individuals treat one another. They argue that group differences in intelligence ought not to be treated as more important or threatening than individual differences, but suggest that one legacy of Black slavery has been to exacerbate race relations such that Blacks and Whites cannot be comfortable with group differences in IQ or any other traits., 
Moreover, although it may appear paradoxical, a goal of social egalitarianism is to raise the genetic contribution to intelligence differences to be as high as possible, by minimizing environmental inequalities and any negatively IQ-impacting cultural differences (The Blank Slate, 106-107).
The appearance of a large practical importance for intelligence makes some scholars claim that the source and meaning of the IQ gap is a pressing social concern. The IQ gap is reflected by gaps in the academic, economic, and social factors correlated with IQ; . However, some dispute the general importance of the role of IQ for real-world outcomes, especially for differences in accumulated wealth and general economic inequality in a nation. See "Practical importance of IQ".
The effects of differences in mean IQ between groups could be amplified by two statistical characteristics of IQ. First, there seem to be minimum statistical thresholds of IQ for many socially valued outcomes (for example, high school graduation and college admission). Second, because of the shape of the normal distribution, only about 16% of the population is at least one standard deviation above the mean. Thus, although the IQ distributions for Blacks and Whites are largely overlapping, different IQ thresholds can have a significant impact on the proportion of Blacks and Whites above and below a particular cut-off.
 Approximate IQ Distributions & Significance in the United States
IQ range                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	Whites                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	Blacks                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	Black:White ratio                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            	Training prospects                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	High school dropout                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	Lives in poverty                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	"Middle-Class Values" indexThe criteria for the "Middle-Class Values" index were: (for men) obtained high school degree (or more), were in labor force (but could be unemployed) throughout previous year (1989), never incarcerated, were still married to their first wife; (for women) obtained a high school degree, had never given birth out of wedlock, never incarcerated, were still marreid to their first husband. Individuals unable to work and those still in school were excluded from this analysis, as well as never-married individuals who satisfied all the other criteria. Poverty is not a criterion, nor is having children.
<75                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	3.6%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	18.0%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	~5:1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	simple, supervised work; eligible for government assistance                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	55%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	30%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	16%
75-90                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	18.3%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	41.4%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	~2:1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	very explicit hands on training; IQ >80 for military training; no government assistance                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	35%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	16%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	30%
90-100                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	24.3%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	24.9%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	~1:1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	mastery learning, hands on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	6%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	6%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	50%
100-110                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	25.9%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	11.9%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	~1:2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	written material plus experience                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	6%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	6%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	50%
110-125                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	22.5%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	3.6%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	~1:6                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	college format                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               	0.4%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	3%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	67%
>125                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	5.4%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	0.2%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	~1:32                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	independent, self-teaching                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	0%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	2%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	74%
Based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) and for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330). Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only, data from other ethnic groups are similar. Note that these are correlations. For example, poverty could be both a cause and consequence of low IQ.	Based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) and for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330). Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only, data from other ethnic groups are similar. Note that these are correlations. For example, poverty could be both a cause and consequence of low IQ.	Based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) and for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330). Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only, data from other ethnic groups are similar. Note that these are correlations. For example, poverty could be both a cause and consequence of low IQ.	Based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) and for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330). Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only, data from other ethnic groups are similar. Note that these are correlations. For example, poverty could be both a cause and consequence of low IQ.	Based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) and for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330). Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only, data from other ethnic groups are similar. Note that these are correlations. For example, poverty could be both a cause and consequence of low IQ.	Based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) and for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330). Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only, data from other ethnic groups are similar. Note that these are correlations. For example, poverty could be both a cause and consequence of low IQ.	Based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) and for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330). Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only, data from other ethnic groups are similar. Note that these are correlations. For example, poverty could be both a cause and consequence of low IQ.	Based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4, SD = 14.7) and for Blacks (mean = 86.9, SD = 13.0) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330). Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only, data from other ethnic groups are similar. Note that these are correlations. For example, poverty could be both a cause and consequence of low IQ.
::Let me get this right, the data for the effect of IQ on social outcomes is based on whites only?  We can't include that here if we're explicitly comparing black and white people and claiming that they will have different outcomes based on IQ!  Do you have the overall or the black only data?--Coroebus 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just going to reiterate, we absolutely cannot include this table if we are only going to use the data from white people for 'significance', you cannot make the implicit claim, 'look, black people score lower on IQ and this means they'll not finish highschool' when your evidence for that is based on white people.  If we can't get data for black people, or at least the whole population I'm going to have to remove this table. --Coroebus 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can "get" all the data from The Bell Curve as well as the NLSY, but not in a way that can be direclty put into this format without doing calculations that are stepping over the WP:NOR line. the regressions will look almost identical for the whole population as the curves for whites because they are the majority (this is empirically verified by the authors of TBC in appendix 4, where you'll find the regression coefficients for the whole population, but not the computed probabilities); the regressions for blacks for these variables are highly congruent with those for whites; where different, the curves for whites usually paint a slightly better picture than reality for blacks. that racial differences exist in these variables before controlling for IQ is also reported in TBC. for high school graduation the average white/black/latino numbers are 84%/73%/65%; for poverty 7%/26%/18%; for MCV index 51%/20%/31%. --Rikurzhen 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, at the very least, we need to say in the box that the 'significance' data for black people are similar.  Otherwise it just looks silly. --Coroebus 08:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to elminate the silly factor. --Rikurzhen 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Within societies

message: This section is a bit speculative.  I think it needs substantial revision.  The first paragraph reference to succesful minorities needs to be related specifically to IQ and race.  Reference to 'Jews' and 'Chinese' I find a bit irksome, but that is stylistic I suppose.  The line about Jews, Nobel prizes and the US vs. Europe is very very speculative (particularly the bit about Europeans getting less Nobel prizes during the 1940s being due to the persecution of Jews, rather than, say, a continental war) - in fact, the referenced paper doesn't mention 'jew' or 'jewish', and only mentions the holocaust once.  The reports of subscore differences by race, while valid to include (or even relevant to a different section where subscore analyses could be discussed away from questions of high-achieving minorities), seem to need hedging a bit more if they are only based on a few studies. --Coroebus 07:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For high-achieving minorities 

message: "Some other psychological traits, such as behavioral inhibition, have also been found to vary significantly in distribution among ethnicities[43]"
:How is hair colour supposed to tell us about ethnicity? --Coroebus 11:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added findings comparing Asians and Europeans. (And blondeness is a strongly biogeographic trait.)--Nectar 09:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is, but that is utterly irrelevant to an article on race and intelligence - blondness is a within-race trait. --Coroebus 12:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Race' is used in much of this area as a proxy for biogeographic ancestry or related concepts, so as long as distribution corresponds with biogeographic ancestry it should be within the article's scope.  Alternatives, such as having a separate article for 'sub-race and intelligence', don't seem reasonable.  Also, comparisons between Northern and Southern Europeans have been an area of interest in this research before.--Nectar 13:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While skin colour can vary by biogeographic ancestry, where is the evidence that within the population studied skin colour actually does vary this way?  You cannot use the fact that blondness varies geographically in Europe to prove that within a given European population blondness is a marker of geographic ancestry (e.g. many Scandinavians are blonde, this does not mean that non-blonde Scandinavians are not of Scandinavian ancestry).  Without evidence that blondness within a current day German population is an indicator of biogeographic ancestry (which I doubt you'll find, given the massive admixture) the studies are irrelevant. --Coroebus 13:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were to assume blonde and non-blonde German children have identical ancestry, meaning the association with inhibition is due to pleiotropy or some other effect, this study finds an association between an ethnic trait and a behavioral trait, which should make it of interest to race and behavior.--Nectar 02:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no need to assume identical ancestry, we just do not have any evidence of different ethnicity.  Therefore it is not a valid reference, it is about neither race, nor intelligence! --Coroebus 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This hair trait occurs at very different frequencies in different "ethnic" populations/clines. It's unnecessary to create a separate article for the sub-category "ethnically-associated trait-groups and intelligence". Race and behavior discussed below at Race and intelligence or Race and behavior?.--Nectar 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So does body hair.  However I do not think an article trying to associate body hair with behaviour in the Swedish population would be appropriate for this article.  I presume you think a study of skin colour and behaviour within the Spanish population would also be similarly enlightening?  Can you see what I'm saying?  While hair colour may vary between ethnic groups, the study you quote is within a population with massive admixture, and you have no evidence that it represents ethnic origins within that population.  Therefore the study is not relevant.  I've already granted you that studies of race and behaviour are of passing interest to this article, but this study is not about race, or even ethnic group, it is about a trait that can vary with ethnic group, but that we have no reason to believe does vary with ethnic background in this population! --Coroebus 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average test score gaps among races 

message: It's obvious that you're fighting against a PoV, Rikurzhen, and not a desire to be fair or scientific or neutral. If fairness were the goal, the neutrality tag would have been removed long ago. This article is very balanced and fair. Those supporting the tag won't give up until all material supporting a view opposite of their own is removed. I think it's time to move this to mediation or arbitration.
:Nah. I think with very few exceptions (of which you are one, I am afraid) the editors on this page are extremely well-behaved and I am confident that Wikipedia's standard mode of operation suffices for this article. Mediation is an extremely tiresome process. Also, please remember WP:FAITH when characterising the motivations of other editors. Your message just made this an unfriendlier forum, which seems counterproductive to your stated aims. Arbor 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced a forum such as Wikipedia is even capable of dealing objectively with heated subjects like this one. An encyclopedia can only be as good as the writers. I try to imagine what a public encyclopedia written in the Victorian era or the Dark Ages would look like, and see no theoretical reason that people in the 2200's looking back on our own efforts wouldn't find us hopelessly hung up on subjects of our own. But with that in mind, I also think that the Wikipedians are doing a remarkably good job on this article, and would like to congratulate the contributors who do maintain good faith on what is obviously a very difficult, contentious, and emotionally charged issue. Harkenbane 06:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You'll never win, Rikurzhen 

message: I reported it here. --Rikurzhen 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has been blocked per above.--Nectar 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI - zen-master violation of block 

message: 
Most critical sources only scratch the surface of the vastness of this article and research's paradigm of lies, but collectively it's obvious. Objective scientific research would not be presented this way, not even close. Abstract conceptualization has been corrupted by presumption inducing language and a restrictive paradigm of unscientific presentation. Hollow are the Ori 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has been blocked per above.--Nectar 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I accuse this article and area of research of being a massive paradigm of lies 

message: I agree with Macgruder 10:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All past discussions on this topic have concluded with the retention of the "race and intelligence" title because (1) this phrase is more commonly used and more easily understood (hence there is a journal titled Intelligence where the primary topic of discussion is IQ), (2) there is much more under discussion than the results of IQ tests (e.g., brain size, reaction time, school achievement) and (3) differences in IQ that are not measurement artifacts are necessarily indicative of differences of intelligence even if the opposite relatinship does not hold. The fact that the <75 IQ white population is actually a mixture of people with organic and familial retardation does not itself imply that there is more to intelligence than IQ, only that there can be more to retardation than intelligence. It is clear that IQ <75 in Africa is predomiantely familial, which explains why the population is not as dysfunctional as one might prima facie predict. --Rikurzhen 06:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, prima facie, it totally undermines any inter-cultural relevance of the IQ<75 = difficulties with daily living point. --Coroebus 08:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change name to Race and IQ Scores

message: Oweing to the fact that  moved the page and then replaced the redirect page with new text, I'm unable to undo these changes. Does someone know how to fix this? --Rikurzhen 06:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested the move anyway. Arbor 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the appropriate action is for an admin to just delete the page Elliott created at Race and intelligence in order to prevent editors from undoing his action.  There's certainly not a debate on this subject; Elliott says he agrees with Macgruder's argument for the name change, but if he actually read that argument he would see that Macgruder conceded the point (ctrl F on this page for "to concede").  In the meantime, I've created a redirect at Race and IQ Scores (References), which provides a seamless fix for the referencing.--Nectar 08:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we have had a long and good discussion about the title in the archives. I cannot see any other conclusion from that discussion than Keep at Race and intelligence but any administrator is welcome to go through those arguments again. Arbor 08:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i don't know how to fix this now