Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 60

message: For some reasons, this article chooses only to focus on the Black-White IQ gap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.227.87 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also. It appears that the article has a hidden agenda. --Jagz (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article could focus more on the white-asian gap maybe we won't be accused of being racists and fringe fanatics. --Jagz (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the small differences in White-Asian (to Asians' favour) and White-Ashkenazi (to Ashkenazis' favour) are neglected, not because the artical is biased to look whites good (whites who recognizes the black-white difference also recognize these differences), but because including these shows that supposed "discriminated" minority groups such as East Asians still manage to score very well in these tests, AND often rise above the poverty line. Why are blacks consistently the lowest scoring group, and why has Africa been underdeveloped since the dawn of time? These two things are tied together. It is not so much that low IQ is caused by poverty, as that poverty is caused by low IQ. The whole article is leftist propaganda, based on the new religion "egalitarianism", that is as opposed to hard science as the Catholic church in the dark ages. Always moral arguments as opposed to factual. Truth is not important to these people. --Electric Eye (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article focus to much on Black-White IQ gap

message: This article is seriously one of the worst I have ever read on Wikipedia, instead of being an article on 'race and IQ' it quickly turns into a 'black vs white' argument rather than what it was supposed to be. There is little to no data relating to any of the other races on the planet as either... Another thing is that this article (from what I can see) does not really question the validity of IQ tests in general.
Not too mention the way it mixes test scores as data... blacks have an average of 85 and whites 100 - yet no where does it mention what was the socio-economic status of those tested, from what locations, how healthy the people tested were - levels of lead or other heavy metals tested in their blood etc. 
I can also gurantee that if I lived in a trailer park and I was nutrient deficient I would most likely receive a lower score against a black person who lived in an 'upper class' city where he receives proper nutrition etc... 
There is so much wrong with this article.. heh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.202.138 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a lot of the criticisms you've raised. Please keep in mind that this article is the result of a merger of many other articles and we're working on pruning it down to a more manageable size.  We need help doing this so if you could make some more specific suggestions that would be great.  If you feel there is a better way to contextulize the IQ scores in particular people be bold and show us how you would do it. Keep in mind, however there is an NPOV policy and we are obligated to show all side of the debate in proportion to their acceptance in main stream science. It could be that some aspects of this article give undue weight to certain theories? What do you think? futurebird 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your desire for all races to have equal powers of reason does not necessarily make it so. --Jagz (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Horrible Article

message: I don't think we should use this caption with this graph. The graph is from The Bell Curve right? Shouldn't the caption say where the graph came from? Using the APA text is paring together ideas in a way that could be original research.  futurebird 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in principle that a graph from one source and accompanying text from another violates NOR; it certainly is misleading and poor practice.  I also have a couple of questions about the text. First, who does the "they" in "they say" refer to?  Surely not the authors of the report, since this is a quote from the report.  Second, is SES adequately defined in this context?  Third, the phrase, "though it is clear, they say, that these differences, are well within the range of effect sizes that can be produced by environmental factors" is either sophistry (if the claim is being made that income and education do not explain the difference) or profound (if it is claiming that income and education are for some reson poor or grossly inadequate indices of "environment") - I'd like to know which one it is, and I'd like an adequate explanation why.  By the way, there has been so much controversy of Merry and Herrnstein that any account of data taken from their book must be presented as reflecting Murray an Herrnstein's point of view and not - at least in most cases - objective data. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with FB.  --Kevin Murray 03:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph from bell curve, text from APA... 

message: The section "Racial strife" while mostly accurate is really not germane to the topic of this article.  This article is too long already to become a lecture on the failures of US society. --Kevin Murray 04:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. The sources are not about race and intelligence anyway. I think that sources that do not mention both of these topics need to be used a little as possible. futurebird 04:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial strife 

message: Here is a good article from Scientific American: Does Race Exist?, article dated 2003 --Jagz 07:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does race exist? 

message: This article does not settle on a definition of "race" that is going to be used in the article. Therefore, the discussion constantly shifts between every possible definition of race and trying to make sense of the article is like trying to grasp a handful of water. Some of the editors have apparently chosen to use their favorite definition of "race". They can also use different definitions of race to justify removing statements that don't support their beliefs. I suggest making the name of the article more specific, like "Race (biology) and human intelligence". --Jagz 12:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call the biological definition of race does not apply to human beings.  Most evolutionary scientists in biology as well as other human sciences have rejected the notion of race altogether (as a biological phenomenon).  When people identify their race when taking IQ tests, they self-identify. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article you'll notice that I have not added a biological definition of race as applied to humans. I wish someone would add it though. Your statements above make it clear why the article may continue to be useless. Here is a good article from Scientific American. Do you believe that groups of the same species that are geographically separated for millions of years can evolve into separate species? Would there be differences between those groups after thousands of years even though they are still the same species? Could this also apply to humans since we are a species too? --Jagz 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course there are differences.  There are biological differences between two siblings, and between a parent and child.  Nevertheless the majority of anthropologists and evolutionary scientists reject the validity of the concept of race as a meaningful and useful way to describe or explain these differences. The editorial you cite supports my point - as they suggest, genetic analysis is much more sophisticated and accurate than racial classification in describing human biological variation, and while race can sometimes be helpful in specific sicutations, as often as not it is unhelpful.  The question is "why" and the answer has to do with the ways race is socially constructed. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using the word race but I have no idea what you are referring to anymore. That's one of the points I'm trying to make. --Jagz 00:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How can one discuss whether or not there is a connection between race and intelligence unless race is defined? --Jagz 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Jagz, that is simply not your problem - unless you want to use wikipedia to publish your own original research.  you do not want to violate NOR, do you?  That is a core policy.  No, it is not our job to discuss whether or not there is a connection between race and intelligence.  It is our job to provide an account of work by professional, competent researchers who discuss whether or not there is a relationship between race and intelligence.  And yes, it is reasonable to think that they would define what they mean by race.  But it is not our job to police what researchers do.  it is our job to find out what they do.  Some define race, some do not.  Of those who define race, some define it in different ways.  Our article needs to provide accounts of the different ways people define race.  Otherwise we would be violating NPOV, another core policy.  I beg of you to read our NOR and NPOV policies because your suggestions mostly involve violating them and we won't do that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In biology, "race" basically designates a subspecies. Genetics has proven that there are no subspecies within the human species (not enough variability), therefore the standard definition of race as a subspecies doesn,t apply to humans, and its inclusion is misleading.--Ramdrake 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but the definition given in the article Race (biology) does not say race is a subspecies. It says race includes subspecies. That's an example of using a different definition of race to justify removing statements that don't support your beliefs as I mentioned above. --Jagz 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of race 

message: .. with "But, But,.. this may be at work""
Go with the Facts. Do not Pander or Waffle.
An example of Societal More's/Committe writing, rather than an Encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.183.132 (talk • contribs) 
:What you seem to think of as waffling, we call NPOV.  It is our core, non-negotiable policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Waffling and NPOV aren't the same thing. Waffling is quite confusing. Just lists of contradictory viewpoints without context isn't the same as NPOV. I've read this article from top to bottom (last weeks version of it at least) and it was quite confusing. Most of the recent changes haven't helped. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with WD.  A concern which I have in this and other socially charged topics is a tendancy to overstate the opinions of third party POV authors.  I don't know of a soulution, but a good step is to form a project to come up with a solution with which we can all abide.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray 17:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, let us start with a specific sentence or paragraph and see how we can fix it.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bless you for your enthusiasm, but the task at this point seems overwhelming for dealing with case by case sentences, and it does not seem practical until we reach a consensus on an overall goal or policy.  I have seen discussion about forming a project around these topics.  I think that is a first step.  --Kevin Murray 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't need a whole project. It's just one article, and it not even the most central or important topic in any of the many disciplines it falls under. The only reason we have so many sources is due to the controversial nature of the topic. If this was an article of Left handedness and singing ability there would not be 13 different pages and... god forbid a whole project on the topic. We should keep working on the article bit by bit untill it makes sense. futurebird 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) I do agree that there should be only one article, and that it be brief and focused.  (2) My thought on having a project would be to allow dedicated contributors to set some standards to which we can adhere.  However, any process that achieves #1 has my support.  I don't think that we should be denying differences, but at the same time our presentation should be to some good or not at all.  If we can help people to have more understanding, that is good.  But if information is twisted to do harm, that is bad. --Kevin Murray 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The whole main entry is so PC/Apologetic in tone

message: Here is a shortcut to the Wikipedia policy regarding the neutral point of view (NPOV). --Jagz 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: Recently scientists  at the University of Chicago identified two genes, microcephalin and ASPM. Mutations in these genes are associated with brain size abnormality, microcephaly. The normal variants are found at high frequencies in Asian and European populations but they are not found among Sub-Saharan Africans. The scientists stated that microcephalin may have arisen some 37,000 years ago coinciding with upper paleolithic transitions in Europe. They also stated that a variant of APSM arose about 5,800 years ago roughly correlating with the development of written language, spread of agriculture and development of cities.  They thus believe these two genes conferred some cognitive abilities upon Asians and Europeans. Brain May Still Be Evolving, Studies Hint 
Other scholars have criticized the University of Chicago scientists because they made claims about these genes without undertaking any direct experimentation to test their hypothesis on increased intelligence and brain size. Subsequently when these experiments were done, no relationship was found between these genes and intelligence or brain size.
The ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM and Microcephalin is not explained by increased intelligenceNormal variants of Microcephalin and ASPM do not account for brain size variability
I think we should remove this section. Here is why: All of this research is recent. We only have an article in the times, then two academic studies saying that those results were not what they seemed to be. In fact here are some quotes form the article in the times that is supposed to support the first statement.
"It's likely that different populations would have a different makeup of these genes, so it may all come out in the wash," he said. In other words, East Asians and Africans probably have other brain-enhancing alleles, not yet discovered, that have spread to high frequency in their populations...Another geneticist, David Goldstein of Duke University, said that the new study was "very well done," but that "it is a real stretch to argue for example that microcephalin is under selection and that that selection must be related to brain size or cognitive function." The gene could have risen to prominence through a random process known as genetic drift, Dr. Goldstein said.
I don't think that the times article is being characterized in a fair way by: "They also stated that a variant of APSM arose about 5,800 years ago roughly correlating with the development of written language, spread of agriculture and development of cities.  They thus believe these two genes conferred some cognitive abilities upon Asians and Europeans."  That's one of many ideas mentioned in the article-- and then there are these other studies saying that the findings aren't valid. It's all very flimsy.
So, rather than rewording it to water it down, let's just remove the whole thing, rebuttal and all. This will also help with the waffling problem. We should limit the article to well supported facts, not speculation, because once you let in one theory that's speculation you must outline all of them to be fair.  futurebird 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're waiting for the merge to get done, anyone want to share your thoughts on this? futurebird 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever is decided, this detail strikes me as weird: "the normal variants are found at high frequencies in Asian and European populations but they are not found among Sub-Saharan Africans". What counts  as "normal" here? The most common? Does not seem quite appropriate. Since abnormalities in this gene are linked to microcephaly, it's almost like implying that sub-saharian are all microcephalics, or that they lack the gene altogether. They just have another, normal variant, which isn't the most common.--Extremophile (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Although it seems disproven, it sounds like an interesting study that might merit its own article. As Extremophile points out, there are some unanswered questions which could be addressed in such an article. However, an argument could be made for removing it from here for sake of size or flow. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: remove the debate over microcephaly

message: I moved the section "Evolution of intelligence" to the article "Evolution of human intelligence". --Jagz 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of intelligence 

message: My only concern at this point is that we are currently at 80kb of prose when wikipedia recommends 30-50kb of prose.Muntuwandi 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can get it down. I've been trimming the most tangental things but now comes the hard part... I love it if I had some help with this task. From anyone, not just you, Muntuwandi. futurebird 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article size

message: I'm concerned about the balance and focus of this article Evolution of human intelligence. It talks a lot about a few speculative theories of how race might be related to intelligence and little else. The sources used are mostly supporters of theories about race and intelligence: 
* Mankind Quarterly
* Richard Lynn
* Linda S. Gottfredson
* Philippe Rushton
It seems like a very one sided article about a fascinating topic where the most prominent and well accepted research has little to do with theories of race. Could some one take a look at it and suggest how to revise it? or perhaps where to merge the material in this article? Should that material be in this article? Most of this material was moved out of the article on Race and intelligence, and I agree that it fits better under Evolution of human intelligence... but now that article is unbalanced. futurebird 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rolled the article back to a point before it became entangled with racial theories, but I think this article should be nominated at AfD.--Ramdrake 15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just left an extended comment with specific suggestions on the article talk page.  There is no need to rely on the speculations of people who have no training or expertise in human evolution, when there are real scholars who have spent their careers studying human evolution and draw on the available empirical evidence to document what we know, so far, about the evolution of human intelligence.  I appreciate Futurebird's concern, but I think that some actions are very obvious to take: (1) Wikipedia doesn't allow POV forks, and (2) articles should favor notable views among scholars who specialize in research on the topic.  I recommended two on the RHI talk page.  I am sorry that i am not in a condition to help add content right now, but if Futurebird, Ramdrake, and others can take the time to read at least some of what I suggest I think it won't be hard for them to assess the structure of the article, and add some basic but crucial, valuable content. As long as there is solid scholarship by notable and widely well-regarded scholars, there is no need to rely on crank theories and pseudoscience.  My proposal for a course of action, which I think is common sense: start with mainstream notable views, and only when you are satisfied they are well-represented, then see how to fit in speculative and controversial views (if they are relevant and notable, of course) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thought your ideas there were great. I can't say I'll have time to deal with it any time soon. But, at least there are people over there now talking about what to do. futurebird 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about: [[Evolution of human intelligence]] as a new POV fork. 

message: Were the editors trying to write a confusing book? --Jagz 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know.  Let's try to be constructive, shall we?  First, can you provide one example of a particular part of the article that is confusing to you?  maybe we can figure out a way to improve it.  Second, what do you mean by "insufficient?"  Are you saying wee need to add something to the article, or are you saying that we need to add anothe article to Wikipedia?  What specifically do you think needs to be added?  If you think lots of things need to added may I suggest you provide just one or two examples - whatever is most important to you, so we can focus on those and try to achieve some progress? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is insufficient 

message: This link to a diff page  shows the sum of the changes since Bainer merged the articles together.  While I applaud the energy of some of the participants there has been too much change too quickly for most of us to evaluate the whole of Bainer's work.  I agreed above not to revert until I'd taken some time to assess, but now that I have had some time I have two major objections: (1) too much was cut by one editor without demonstrating consensus, and (2) some editors added new information and graphics when we are trying to cut.  I propose that we (A) look at the diff above and evaluate the hard work done in trimming, (B) implement these changes and others on a section by section basis after we discuss, working from the top down, with the exclusion of the lead section which we write to reflect the finished article, and (C) we seek semi protection to prevent anonymous interference as has happened in the last day or two.  Alternatively, we ask for page protection and set up a sandbox version where we can work together section by section.  --Kevin Murray 09:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What new material was added? I mean, what new graphics? JJJamal 13:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much change too quickly 

message: Bold is good, but the merge is only recently complete and the pace of editing is too fast to unpick what's being done; we don't need to repeat the faults of the articles that got merged back. I protected this for a while to allow some kind of consensus building process to start. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: It's way too huge now. I don't understand why we can't work on this piece by piece. If people want to add or cut something say something. Don't just say "the pace is too fast" JJJamal 13:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wish they come and explain their decision. I'm really angry about all of this. Why can't we TALK about the changes that were made? The article was improving. I made a lot of changes and so did others. I've been watching every change, even the ones from IPs It's not that hard. JJJamal 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were all of the changes reverted? 

message: OK, let's discuss each of these changes:
* Media portrayal: shorten to a single section with no subsections
* Controversies: cut everything except for one or two sentences about the Pioneer fund which should go in the section on scientific racism. 
* Physiological responses to racism remove this section
* Health: we could say a little more here
* Explanations: would like to see a photo of Dr. Ogbu for balance.
* Under "Intelligence" remove the sub-section called "Environment" that only contains a quote by Steve Sailer 
* Remove one image from the section on history. 
* more information in lead levels. (where's the graphic?)
JJJamal 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  JJ, could we incorporate your list into our goals, but try to draft changes to one section at a time?  --Kevin Murray 13:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a special case and the big picture should be kept in mind at all times.  Please try something different, since all prior courses seem to have failed.  I notice that your contributions to WP have mostly been to this article.  Perhaps you might experiment with some other articles to get a feel for a less volatile environment.  --Kevin Murray 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The above comment is problematic and confrontational.  It does not led anywhere constructive because the 'other side' is just going to say "... that amount to nazi apologetics, maybe the article should be... do the nazi rosary..."  You see what I am saying?  Be more specific and leave the decorations out. Brusegadi 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to make

message: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound
User:Moonriddengirl has nothing to do with this article. it's just a place where we can work on this one section. I don't want to hear any complaints from people who are not helping.  Editors please make your changes there and discuss them on the talk page there.
Use bold when you add things "strike" when you take stuff out. Let's do it. futurebird 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God bless you! --Kevin Murray 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also started through the history of the article and invited Kingj123 and Ryan Delaney to join.  However, it dawned on me that inviting people who have not joined the discussion but have been changing the text unilaterally may not be productive, so I've not gone further there.  --Kevin Murray 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's at Talk:Race and intelligence/background now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Think this aricle sucks? Want to help? Go here 

message: Protection expired this morning and an IP made these changes: [].  The page was reprotected, but under policy the changes stand unless we can demosntrate a consensus for removal.  --Kevin Murray 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Additons when unprotected 

message: I moved this information from the article and now I'm moving it back to the Talk page. --Jagz 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of intelligence 

message: Here is a sentence from the anti-racism article that could be used as the first sentence of a section in this article to help make it more balanced: 
"In recent years the belief that race has no effect on intelligence or potential -- a basic tenet of anti-racist philosophy -- has been challenged by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton and defended by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin." --Jagz 05:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have mixed feelings about the value of this topic, and would like to see a maximum of an overview of the topic.  However, I would support a separate article on "IQ and genetics" independent of this topic. --Kevin Murray 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with this idea, but let me think it over. First of all we already have: Genetics of intelligence and it's almost the same thing as IQ and genetics. The question remains: what is "serious" should we take the Bell Curve or articles from Mankind Quarterly seriously? Maybe it is best to keep the information with the title of the work or writer. I think this is fair. futurebird 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may chime in, these views, although they may certainly be viewed as pseudoscience, still have attracted a significant amount of public exposure, and as such, NPOV requires that we mentin them somehow. We can't just silence them; we may not think of them as serious,  but some people do, and if we ignore them, people will just constantly keep reinserting them in the article, s it's really best to deal with them.--Ramdrake 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't having a whole article on The Bell Curve, or on the work of Jensen, good enough? That way you can see the idea, and the criticism in one place and we avoid the whole "point counter point" problem that has made this article bloated. Who says that "Race and intelligence" is a topic of study? When I serch google scholar the only paper by that title is hosted at stormfront.org -- Let's change the title of the Genetics of intelligence article and then list all of the things from this rticle that we think could go in to that one. The rest will go to the writer's page, or be deleted... I don't know if this is a good idea, but I'm just thinking about how it might make more sense. futurebird 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that relegating these ideas, even if they are fringe, outside this article basically constitutes a POV fork, as these theories, no matter how unsavory they are, are germane to the subject. However, as a side note, I do find 140,000 hits in Google scholar when entering the words "Race" and "intelligence" (without the "and"). So, as much as I dislike these theories, I don't see how we can forego at least mentioning them.--Ramdrake 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a look at the Genetics of intelligence article, and it is hardly about genetics at all. In fact I don't think there is anything very much (or possibly at all) known about genetics and intelligence, beyond the fact that quite a lot of genes can reduce intelligence, but these are mostly not associated with brain development directly (think of something like Phenylketonuria). I think Graves claims that up to 40% of genes can have some effect on intelligence. Seems to me it would be better to have an article called something like IQ and heredity, after all we can show that cleverness runs in families without actually knowing anything about the genetics of "intelligence" (if such a thing exists, which I doubt). Besides cleverness running in families might be evidence of heritability, though it could just be that specific families have specific environments/traditions that promote inquiry in young minds, things that run in families are not always genetic! So maybe Genetics of intelligence should just be moved to IQ and heredity and rewritten according to SLR's suggestion? Alun 06:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Mostly these studies discuss heritability and not genetics. I still think the article should be called "IQ and heredity" or "Heritability of IQ" or some such thing. Being able to estimate how heritable a trait is is not the same as knowing the genetics of a trait, especially it is not the same as the molecular biology/biochemistry of a trait. Alun 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think it's a good approach to have two articles, though as you say the interaction of inherited ability with environment is very important, and I don't think anyone has ever really been able to successfully separate the two. Keep a clever kid in a social vacuum, and I don't care how good their "genes" are, they're going to be a bit thick. I'm not sure about genetics vs heritability, we know that ability is inherited, but we have no idea what genes are responsible for cleverness. Still it is probably true, as you say, that the actual title of the article may not need to be that specific, and maybe I'm quibbling. All the best. Alun 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, IQ and genetics is much better and easier to deal with.  It will also avoid battles since intelligence is not measurable, but IQ, by def, is. Brusegadi 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Some relevant papers. I can only see the abstracts of these papers. I still think IQ and heredity is more accurate. Cheers. Alun 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Nature versus nurture in the IQ debate. --Jagz 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JAgz, you seem to be mixing up within-group heritability and between-group heritability. IQ is highly heritable and that has been demonstrated; what people have failed to demonstrate is that genetically-driven racial differences account for the B-W IQ gap; there is no direct evidence for it.--Ramdrake 20:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to try to resolve it but only to write an article as a third-party without an opinion, which this article has thus far failed to accomplish. --Jagz 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the article more NPOV 

message: (section moved from sanbox talkpage)
Kevin asked me to comment here.  I have long refrained from expressing my own views on the matter because I think they are at odds with most others and would call for a very different approach that I fear may just cause more endless debate.  But personally, I see no value in an article on race and intelligence.  The bulk of scientific research on variation in IQ either does not use race as a category, or uses it in a very different way than most people use the word race.  My approach would be this: an article on "IQ and genetics" which would draw on serious scientific research, including several recent and sophisticated twin studies; another article on "IQ and socio-economic status."  I see the virtues of this approach as two-fold.  First, the terms IQ, genetics, and SES are more precise and clearly understood among scientists than "intelligence" or"race."  Second, two articles would side-step the question of whether intelligence is a matter of nature or nurture as if it has to be one or the other when most scientists agree it is both; genes and environment are two contributing factors, not competing theories, for most scientists.  I think these two articles would accomodate the best current scientific research.  Now, I know that nature versus nurture and race/IQ are hot political controversies in which some scientists have involved themselves.  But I do not think these popular controversies should shape serious encyclopedia articles on the general topics.  Rather, I would propose to have separate articles for controversial books, for example, an article on The Bell Curve and an article on Rushton's major work.  This approach has the merit of focussing on specific theories proposed by a rather snmall set of individual scholars; the books themselves sparked public (not really scientific, although some scientists chimed in) debate and articles focused on the books can cover the popular debates.  Once these articles are written, both the IQ and genetics and the IQ and SES articles can have a small section called "Public controversies" that summarizes the public/popular debates with links to the articles on the books by Murry/Hernstein and by Rushton.  Well, this is how I would do it.  It would require deleting an article that has been around for years as well as a number of recent articles I know many of you put a lot of effort into.  But I have no constructive comments concerning any of the articles currently in play - I just see the issue from a whole other pespective.  It's just my two cents. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have mixed feelings about the value of this topic, and would like to see a maximum of an overview of the topic.  However, I would support a separate article on "IQ and genetics" independent of this topic. --Kevin Murray 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with this idea, but let me think it over. First of all we already have: Genetics of intelligence and it's almost the same thing as IQ and genetics. The question remains: what is "serious" should we take the Bell Curve or articles from Mankind Quarterly seriously? Maybe it is best to keep the information with the title of the work or writer. I think this is fair. futurebird 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may chime in, these views, although they may certainly be viewed as pseudoscience, still have attracted a significant amount of public exposure, and as such, NPOV requires that we mentin them somehow. We can't just silence them; we may not think of them as serious,  but some people do, and if we ignore them, people will just constantly keep reinserting them in the article, s it's really best to deal with them.--Ramdrake 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't having a whole article on The Bell Curve, or on the work of Jensen, good enough? That way you can see the idea, and the criticism in one place and we avoid the whole "point counter point" problem that has made this article bloated. Who says that "Race and intelligence" is a topic of study? When I serch google scholar the only paper by that title is hosted at stormfront.org -- Let's change the title of the Genetics of intelligence article and then list all of the things from this rticle that we think could go in to that one. The rest will go to the writer's page, or be deleted... I don't know if this is a good idea, but I'm just thinking about how it might make more sense. futurebird 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that relegating these ideas, even if they are fringe, outside this article basically constitutes a POV fork, as these theories, no matter how unsavory they are, are germane to the subject. However, as a side note, I do find 140,000 hits in Google scholar when entering the words "Race" and "intelligence" (without the "and"). So, as much as I dislike these theories, I don't see how we can forego at least mentioning them.--Ramdrake 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a look at the Genetics of intelligence article, and it is hardly about genetics at all. In fact I don't think there is anything very much (or possibly at all) known about genetics and intelligence, beyond the fact that quite a lot of genes can reduce intelligence, but these are mostly not associated with brain development directly (think of something like Phenylketonuria). I think Graves claims that up to 40% of genes can have some effect on intelligence. Seems to me it would be better to have an article called something like IQ and heredity, after all we can show that cleverness runs in families without actually knowing anything about the genetics of "intelligence" (if such a thing exists, which I doubt). Besides cleverness running in families might be evidence of heritability, though it could just be that specific families have specific environments/traditions that promote inquiry in young minds, things that run in families are not always genetic! So maybe Genetics of intelligence should just be moved to IQ and heredity and rewritten according to SLR's suggestion? Alun 06:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Mostly these studies discuss heritability and not genetics. I still think the article should be called "IQ and heredity" or "Heritability of IQ" or some such thing. Being able to estimate how heritable a trait is is not the same as knowing the genetics of a trait, especially it is not the same as the molecular biology/biochemistry of a trait. Alun 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think it's a good approach to have two articles, though as you say the interaction of inherited ability with environment is very important, and I don't think anyone has ever really been able to successfully separate the two. Keep a clever kid in a social vacuum, and I don't care how good their "genes" are, they're going to be a bit thick. I'm not sure about genetics vs heritability, we know that ability is inherited, but we have no idea what genes are responsible for cleverness. Still it is probably true, as you say, that the actual title of the article may not need to be that specific, and maybe I'm quibbling. All the best. Alun 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, IQ and genetics is much better and easier to deal with.  It will also avoid battles since intelligence is not measurable, but IQ, by def, is. Brusegadi 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Some relevant papers. I can only see the abstracts of these papers. I still think IQ and heredity is more accurate. Cheers. Alun 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Nature versus nurture in the IQ debate. --Jagz 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JAgz, you seem to be mixing up within-group heritability and between-group heritability. IQ is highly heritable and that has been demonstrated; what people have failed to demonstrate is that genetically-driven racial differences account for the B-W IQ gap; there is no direct evidence for it.--Ramdrake 20:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to try to resolve it but only to write an article as a third-party without an opinion, which this article has thus far failed to accomplish. --Jagz 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another view