Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 48

message: for those interested, it's probably worth looking into what he's written and/or what he's said that's documented in the media. he is/was president of the ASA, which issued a statement defending the importance of race in sociology research. his nuanced opinions are described here and elsewhere. --W.R.N. 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone was saying that race didn't exist-- I mean there must be a gene for say skin color-- the question is wether race is a meaningful category for studying differences in intelligence. I mean genetic differences exist-- I don't understand why you are bringing this up or how it is relevant-- Let's not get side-tracked. futurebird 02:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was suggested that opinions from different disciplines were not represented sufficiently. Duster is apparently a respected sociologist who writes about race differences in a variety of contexts. I wasn't looking to have an argument about the merits of race. --W.R.N. 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. futurebird 03:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems Duster is arguing that the application of racial categories should not be misconstrued as biological determinism - that is to say, race is biologically inconsequential, but socially significant.  This nuanced interpretation drives to the heart of the "genetic" hypothesis, making it clear that the social categories of "race" and the effects of being in those social categories is worth studying, but that assuming that a social category of race is a proxy for genetics causing specific effects is terribly misleading.  Thanks for the reference, WRN! --JereKrischel 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Duster's a little more nuanced than that. Don't conflate his normative statements with his statements of fact. He suggests that we guard against the over-biologicalization of race as it would be tempting to suggest that alleles are the cause when the real cause may be social factors that are confounded with allele frequencies. Risch makes a similar point in many editorials. Supporting quote -- A new approach, gene clustering, avoids race by dividing according to medically important markers, such as genes for the enzymes necessary to metabolize drugs. But society will very likely re-create racial categories and rankings under the new terms, Duster predicts. And by failing to name the social context, this strategy gives base-pair differences undue emphasis at the expense of environmental influences. Race is a social reality, Duster observes, and he warns that science itself is a social institution susceptible to essentialist perceptions of race.  --W.R.N. 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  troy duster - sociology 

message: This citation does specifically cite some race/intelligence research, and seems like an important reference for the "race is an invalid proxy" POV.  Its primary focus was a birth weight study, but I think this is a perfect example of an important POV to represent in the structure of the article.
Frank, Reanne, The Misuse of Biology in Demographic Research on Racial/Ethnic Differences: A Reply to van den Oord and Rowe, Demography - Volume 38, Number 4, November 2001, pp. 563-567
:An even more egregious set of ethical violations complements the methodological errors committed when racial groups are conceptualized as discrete genetic entities. Goodman (1997) argued that researchers fall into a number of groups with regard to understanding race and biology. The most malignant are the "true believers," who subscribe to the typological distinctions that imply hierarchical rankings of worth across different races. Although this group remains small, the members' work is often widely publicized and well known (e.g., Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Rushton 1991)....In a discussion of the controversial book The Bell Curve, in which Herrnstein and Murray (1994) argued that racial differences in intelligence exist...The use of racial categories as a starting point for understanding genetic variation represents shoddy and imprecise research, leading to the misspecification of models and the misinterpretation of findings...It gives credence to the discredited findings of disreputable researchers: those who argue explicitly that there are many measurable genetic differences between racial groups, and implicitly that these racial differences connote hierarchical differences in worth. 
I would argue that even a passing reference like this is appropriate, given the explicit mention of prominent racialists who assert race/intelligence differences.  --JereKrischel 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - here is a good example of a quote that we can use without violating NOR Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote is a perfect source for this section. Let's remember to add it once the page is unlocked. futurebird 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of important citation

message: :::"Yes, no matter how we feel about the subject, we must present it neutrally, and let the readers decide for themselves. We can no more turn this into an indictment of racialist science than we can endorse, explicitly or implicitly, any specific side in the debate."  I think what this group has run into here is what I see as the limitation of the NPOV as a rule.  I mean, it seems to me there are two ways to portray this article: as a scientific field which has happened to have had controversy around it, or a controversy around a subject whose proponents insist it is science.  I don't see how you can present both perspectives in a neutral way.  
:::Also, I agree with Futurebird that things like the article outline and intro are good places to start.  Maybe even start proposing content for more sections, perhaps starting with the ones that exist in multiple versions of the outline.  It just seems too overwhelming to go through the article as is working on citation when it's going to be rewriten anyway.  Why not keep working on citation issues while writing the new article?
:::Finally, I think for those of us trying to come in and help -as well as probably for you folx who have been on the talk page for a while- can we have a list of suggestions/issues that have either been ignored and left behind or are still being debated?  (Including an explination of what OR is)  Thanks!  Schwael 21:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  I'm used to seeing NOR.  ;) Schwael 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! We need to start with the intro or the outline. People just keep talking in circles and it's not going anyplace. I think the new intro is a good starting point. The intro is one of the most important parts, and if we can't agree on that, then what have we got? JJJamal 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schwael has question, ideas, problem 

message: thanks. it's pointless as it is now.--Hollerbackgril 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pg num on footnote 84