Talk:Race and intelligence (potential for bias)

message: In http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html Charles Murray discusses the "bias" issue. Elabro 17:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I removed the following passage:
*"However, the SPLC itself has been accused of exaggerating the threat of racism in order to increase fund-raising revenue and of wrongfully applying the term "hate group" to legitimate organizations. In 1994, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative report of the SPLC found evidence of racial discrimination and finanical impropriety."
If one wants to look into the faults of the SPLC, he or she is free to look at the article in question. The only relevent information here was that the Fund was accused by the SPLC of being a hate group, under whatever criteria they had. One is free to investigate the process in which the Fund became a "hate group" to the SPLC. Attacking the character of the accuser by telling of improprieties and whatnot is not only a weak argument, it is a sign of weakness on the part of the accused, it shows that the accused is no longer able to argue on principle and must resort to such attacks. --OneTopJob6 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a very good idea to mention their methodology.  SPLC is a pretty respectable group & almost surely makes this sort of information easily available.  As for your removed text, yes, I don't see how SPLC's finances are remotely relevant to this article, but the accusations of exaggeration are relevant IF supportable by specific examples (in the SPLC's article).  JeffBurdges 07:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusing the accuser 

message: I respect the SPLC quite a bit, but a whole article on their opinion about the Pioneer fund is a POV fork of the Pioneer fund article.  This article should be refocused on the wider fact that there is a bias against funding any research which may yield inconvienient results.  The Pioneer fund's influence is a conseqeunce of that bias.  JeffBurdges 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it all about the Pioneer fund? 

message: This article is supposed to be about accusations of bias. Instead it is a thinly veiled defence of the scientists who conduct this sort of work. Let's talk about the biased and unscientific methods these charlatans use, it's what the article is supposed to be about isn't it? Alun 11:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this article is mostly a rebuttal.futurebird 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: The title makes those who have pointed out bias sound whiny, as does the subtitle "Complaints of persecution." This article should be called something like "Potential for bias" since, especially in the historical context, bias isn't just a possibility but a nearly universal fact. Modern research that is regarded as biased only by some should be covered in other articles to avoid the implication that it is biased. 
It seems that some material from other articles that is critical of the genetic hypothesis has been shunted here. futurebird 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recentism

message: The partly-genetic researcher Cyril Burt has been accused of fraud.[2]
i don't think burt was a "partly-genetic researcher" in the r&i sense. his alleged fraud was about twins. W.R.N. 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best not to use the moniker "partly-genetic" anywhere. --JereKrischel 07:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the correction is even true. Burt isn't cited in R&J (2005). In TBC he's cited wrt the scandal regarding the heritability of IQ and not again. In Jensen (1998) he's cited similarly to TBC, with a footnote saying that Jensen (1974) discusses the Burt affair. Jensen also notes that the effect on a meta-analysis estimate of rMZA is only .006 different w/ or w/o Burt's data. If it's true, it would seem to need a citation and attribution. --W.R.N. 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  --JereKrischel 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're asking.  The accusers are spelled out in the cite (Tucker)...are you asking for more specificity as to who uncovered his fraud?  It's more like saying, "proponents of miscegenation cite the words of Strom Thurmond, who himself had a mixed race child". --JereKrischel 08:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyril Burt