Talk:Race and intelligence (explanations)/Archive 2

message: the nisbett paper used in the introduction is "self-published".   in other words, it isn't published.  it isn't even complete.  read through it and there are notes to himself like "more more more" and it ends with "Suppose ".   he defines west indians as black, though few indians, european whites, or blacks would agree.   some very questionable studies are cited in this paper and misrepresented.  blood type/IQ correlation studies in black twins aren't going to find anything unless blood type is related to IQ, which no one has proposed other than japanese pseudoscientists.   the writing displays an utter lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts in statistical genetics, which isn't surprising considering nisbett is a professor of social psychology.  this citation should be removed altogether and whoever put it in should be ashamed of himself or herself for including this rough draft pontification as if it were respectably published work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nisbett citation 

message: To use a null hypothesis one first sets up a 'false' hypothesis then disproves it using statical analysis of the data. The null hypothesis for the genetic explanation of race and intelligence differences is that none of the other non-genetic factors such as the existence of caste-like minorities, socio-economic factors, culture, the effort gap, pidgin language barriers, quality of education, health, racism, exposure to violence, the Flynn effect stereotype threat, and none of the possible combinations of these factors can fully explain the gap between tests scores of people of different races. To disprove this null hypothesis (and thereby prove the genetic hypothesis) researches who support the genetic explanation must show that all of the other possible causes for the gap, alone or together in any combination cannot eliminate the gap from testing scores.
I think we should put it back. JJJamal 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: just putting this here

message: ultramarine removed a useful quote from TBC about heritability -- it even included talk about seeds to go with FB's image. UL's objection wasn't about the content but the source. the choice of TBC was intentional -- because the content was part of an argument that limits the applicability of heritability to genetic explanations, coming from TBC essentially proves that "even they" agree with the limitation. --W.R.N. 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make a good point here. If I knew how I'd put it back. I'm still getting used to this place. JJJamal 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As you please. --W.R.N. 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok.Ultramarine 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait. The quote contains some dubious material regarding the extent of heritability. Later studies have questioned these results, like for impoverished families.Ultramarine 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you're talking about Capron and Duyme (1989). think "exceptions to the rule" -- it implies there is a rule. If you pick up a textbook on intelligence, you'll read about h^2 being 40-80% heritable (in the west). those exceptions have received counter-claims and the net result has not been adjudicated by scholarly opinion AFAIK. --W.R.N. 06:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heritability is just a stat, it's not the same as genetics. The 40-80 is reasonable among those who accept the whole psychometric ball game, inculing the likes of Steele and Ogbu... The point here is IQ test scores can be even 100 percent heritable and there may still be gaps between groups. futurebird 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, that is H&M's point. --W.R.N. 06:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored.Ultramarine 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell curve is not a good source for a neutral section 

message: Jensen's assertion that by accepting his version of null hypothesis, you must believe in his genetic explanation, is not a genetic explanation - it belongs in the null hypothesis section, where the basic fundamentals of the question are being discussed.  
Furthermore, diving into the fine-grained details of only one side of an argument here seems inappropriate.  There is undue weight being placed on Jensen's line of reasoning, without proper counter balance.  If you want to add in 4 paragraphs regarding Jensen's "default" and his line of reasoning, you should also add 4 paragraphs regarding critiques to Jensen's line of reasoning.  --JereKrischel 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that arguments that are meta-arguments, really should be in separate sections...I think they belong at the top, but maybe we need a sub-section for them, like "Common arguments" or "Frequently debated points".  Explanations should pretty much be limited to the statement of the hypothesis, and perhaps some relevant study directly testing that hypothesis.  Arguments over the interpretations of a study (based on debating the fundamental questions or null hypothesis to be used), seem like they need a different section.  I get the feeling that these arguments pop up in sections right now and aren't very well organized...with arguments in every section, on every reference, we lose some clarity.  The idea of a null hypothesis can be used to promote either a genetic or an environmental explanation, but it doesn't seem to fit in one or the other.  Anyway, my $0.02. --JereKrischel 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding a better organization for the entire article is a great goal, but the material in question need not wait on the side-lines until we resolve that difficult issue. --W.R.N. 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the material, and added a response to the "Factor X" critique. It seems better to have that argument outside of the "genetic explanation" section.  --JereKrischel 08:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Mental retardation due to a specific genetic defect, AFAIK, doesn't have any "flip-side" - nobody has identified a gene which confers upon its holder genius IQ.  The range of normal intelligence has not been found to be a function of any specific genes.  One day, it may be found that specific combinations of genes found that play "roles" in intelligence form a formula that predicts IQ, but we are well far away from any sort of road map like that.  At best, we have some idea that there are some genes related to intelligence - what their specific relation is has not been discovered. --JereKrischel 07:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there have been a number of reports of genetic linkage or associations with IQ (e.g. , ). How replicated and believable these reports are is not something I know. --W.R.N. 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Default hypothesis and detailed lines of argument

message: Since the science of genetics has not yet found a gene that determines intelligence
this just isn't true.  there are many genes known to be involved in intelligence.   just think of a gene involved in severe mental retardation ; flip the coin and you have a gene that determines intelligence.   IGF2R, CTSD, Msx1 also play roles in intelligence (and the list grows longer every year).
this is a different question than whether race determines intelligence.
:Mental retardation due to a specific genetic defect, AFAIK, doesn't have any "flip-side" - nobody has identified a gene which confers upon its holder genius IQ.  The range of normal intelligence has not been found to be a function of any specific genes.  One day, it may be found that specific combinations of genes found that play "roles" in intelligence form a formula that predicts IQ, but we are well far away from any sort of road map like that.  At best, we have some idea that there are some genes related to intelligence - what their specific relation is has not been discovered. --JereKrischel 07:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there have been a number of reports of genetic linkage or associations with IQ (e.g. , ). How replicated and believable these reports are is not something I know. --W.R.N. 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: genetic intelligence

message: The material regarding this should be removed from the article. It is not evidence for racial genetic differences in IQ. Rather, assuming that there are such differences, then this is just one possible explanation for how this evolved. There are numerous other possible explanations. Objections? Ultramarine 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reorganized the article in order to avoid confusion, so the problem may be solved. Regardless, most of the rK-material should be moved to already existing article regarding that topic in order to avoid duplication.Ultramarine 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rushton's r-K theory 

message: This page is about three times longer than it should be.  that means it is time to archive.  I will do it but I cannot decide on my own how much because I have not been following this discussion.  We should archive material that is no longer actively being discussed, and I think it is up to active contributors to make that decision.  For the sake of convenience, I ask four people to tell me up to what topic # they think we can safely archive.  Please put the highest number you feel comfortable with, and I will archive the lowest number of the four:
*Futurebird: Up to 19, per ultra. futurebird 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, three out of four - I'll archive.  JK, I suggest you check what I archive to make sure there is nothing there you do not want to re-introduce. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YOU must archive 

message: Estimates of the significance of genetics vs. environment are dependent on the strength of environmental factors. For example, schizophrenia, regarded as being highly heritable,Relative risk for cognitive impairments in siblings of patients with schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 98-107 M. EganImpaired attention, genetics, and the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. has seen increased rates in second and third generation immigrants to Western European countries which do not seem to be the result of increased genetic susceptibility, but other, as yet unidentified, environmental factors that seem to have become more influential.
Seems a bit off topic. futurebird 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --W.R.N. 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed schizophrenia

message: FB seems to have created a response of critics section for environmental explanations. the section is called "Arguements against environmental explanations". If this is to be maintained, then it will need to be applied to the genetic explanations section as well. --W.R.N. 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair. I hope this will reduce the "debate like" nature of the article. Let's roll with it for a bit and see if it makes sense. futurebird 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I have no problem with the use of a "response of critics" section if it actually works. The main article sections were once built that way. --W.R.N. 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  respones of critics section(s) 

message: excerpted here for others to read because it comes from a lengthy source  --W.R.N. 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  flynn describes Factor X