Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 52

message: The introduction read:
“Because these tests and the concept of race itself are widely deemed to be subjective, current mainstream science, sociology, medicine, and ethics have largely stopped supporting research which carries certain assumptions, namely:
that race is more than a social construct and correlates to deeper genetic differences 
that genetics has some correlation with intelligence 
that intelligence can be measured 
that testing differences can be attributed to genetic factors rather than to environmental factors. 
Nevertheless some research continues which attempts to find links between these subjective areas, and likewise certain related research has been claimed by third parties to demonstrate or prove some link between genes and intellect.”''
I have removed this because the 
** The tests are not widely considered to be subjective
** It is well established that there is a link between genetics and intelligence (See Gray Thompson 2004) and rather than science ceasing to support such research it is becoming increasingly mainstream
** Ditto re the fact that intelligence can be measured
** Ditto re the fact that intelligence differences are attributable to genes rather than enviroment.
It is disturbing that the introduction to a Wikipedia article can be so wrong.Romper 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I found the study! 
Abstract: We exploit a universe dataset of state school students in England with linked test score records to  document the evolution of attainment through school for different ethnic groups. The analysis yields a  number of striking findings. First, we show that, controlling for personal characteristics, all minority  groups make greater progress than white students over secondary schooling. Second, much of this  improvement occurs in the high-stakes exams at the end of compulsory schooling. Third, we show that  for most ethnic groups, this gain is pervasive, happening in almost all schools in which these students  are found. We address some of the usual factors invoked to explain attainment gaps: poverty, language,  school quality, and teacher influence. We conclude that our findings are more consistent with the importance of factors like aspirations and attitudes. 
Sounds like support for "Ogbu Theory" I'm reading the paper now. Here is a link. The Dynamics of School Attainment of England’s Ethnic Minorities, Deborah Wilson, Simon Burgess and Adam Briggs (2005 version) futurebird 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstract and Link to study

message: WRN, The trouble is, that in the process of reverting you deleted some new material I'd added. I've added it back. This is the first time this happened tonight. I've left a message on your talk page about the 2nd time it happened... It's a little worrisome to me, we need to be more careful with these massive edits. That goes for you WDK, me and JK. futurebird 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, i didn't "revert" i copied it from the history. --W.R.N. 02:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. that's odd, some things that I added disappeared in both cases. But, I know it's easy to make a mistke. So, I'm just saying let's all be careful. futurebird 02:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I assumed the material was deleted, so went back to the last instance I knew of. --W.R.N. 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please be careful!

message: As per the suggested outline:
 0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
 1. background/history (subarticle - Race and intelligence (history))
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
      - 1-2 paragraphs
 1.2. race (main: race)
      - 1-2 paragraphs
 2. research (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Research)
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 2.1. intelligence test data (subarticle - Race and intelligence (test data)
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 2.2. explanations (subarticle - Race and intelligence (explanations)
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 3. media portrayal (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 4. controversies (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Controversies)
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 5. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)
--JereKrischel 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a comprehensive list of sub-articles recently created, as per an earlier suggestion we are trying to implement. --JereKrischel 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article layout

message: i moved stuff around, created, sub-articles, tagged others for merging, etc. please review the structure of what's done and let me know what you think. i think we can all agree that the actual summary sections are in need of change. i'm hoping we can figure out the organization first. --W.R.N. 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems on first glance to be fine. We still have all of JK's sections right? I'll say more later. futurebird 06:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second glance this is NOT ok. What happened to the "direct/indirect" distinction? Brian Size isn't a "direct measure!" futurebird 06:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you deleted some of my content again...futurebird 06:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  does that make sense? 

message: I was going to add in the labels, but in doing so I discovered that these curves are not the same as those in the source. Why is that? futurebird 16:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the curves are the same size because they show the distributution in percent of each group. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like these curves have been manipulated to make it seem as if a substantial portion of black people are, well, retarded. I mean, the paper where these curves came from is just plain filled with right-wig assumptions and then, on top of that the version that WRN NEW posted is off even more in the direction of making black people seem dumb. I'm shocked. How do people think they can get away with this kind of nonsense? Thanks futurebird for getting all nit-picky and comparing the curves, you've uncovered something very disturbing! JJJamal 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is just rehashing the same argument.  There is nothing new here that hasn't been discussed before.  I've proposed taking this out or moving it down from the top.  Either get rid of it (with my support) or stop complaining about it.  It demonstates the concept of the bell distribution.  If the variances between the distributions is accurate then the graphic is appropriate.  If the variance is wrong or the centers of the bell(s) are in the wrong place, that can be fixed by moving the bells or shifting the labels. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Kevin Murray is correct. The charts plot the means from the '81 WISC normalization, but use 15 as the SD to simplify things. The net effect of ignoring SD or using some other adult normalization sample is negligible because the point of the curves are to demonstrate the distributional nature of the differences. --W.R.N. 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still more problems with these curves

message: my edits were reverted by FB. from my edit summary, here is the reason for the edits: those criticisms are about the single-study scores used to esimate national IQ in IQatWoN; don't apply. the criticism is about a detail of IQatWoN that doesn't map to RDI. --W.R.N. 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no reason to delete sourced information. futurebird 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OR to say that criticism of book X applies to book Y just because the author is the same and the topic is similar. The criticisms may or may not apply, in fact they do not. --W.R.N. 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on restating this. futurebird 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iq and the wealth of nations criticism don't apply to Lynn (2006)