Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 42

message: This article was nominated for deletion for obvious reasons. This article has questionable scientific value, which is why it was nominated for deletion. Please view the discussion points above to understand why the article was nominated for deletion. Making a judgement before understanding how the brain works makes this article an assumption, or a non scientific way of looking at things. Until scientists can actually understand how the brain works this article will only be based on an opinion that cannot be verified by modern technology or devices. One circumstance has shown that people with half a brain can be successful academically, see Ahad Israfil . Which proves that not only a smaller brain can perform well, but also brains that been shot in half have been known to pass college and graduate with honors. Jon Dec. 18 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon568 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinion. Of course, we should also remember that this may not be the opinion of the many scientists who have contributed valuable research to this subject. – Agendum 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mainstream science, the APA has said so, the biggest names in the field say so.  Perhaps you're starting from a dogmatic certainty that it can't be science so it isn't?  The data certainly disagrees with you and so do essentially all specialists in the field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it depends on which researchers in which field you mean. "Race and intelligence" means psychologists and psychometricians, but also biologists, anthropologists and several other specialties which may not agree to what you find "mainstream".--Ramdrake 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is based on a pseudoscience; please be aware of this before adding to the discussion. 

message: I'll renew my concern that the Environmental explanations section is overly long and disorganized, and that the net effect is to obscure the most common and important arguments for this position. For example -- The 1st, 3rd and last two paragraphs present relatively uncommon (or unique) arguments, but their prominence suggests that they are of equal importance to the discussions of culture, toxic environments, and the Flynn effect. An attempt to discern which arguments are most important and to concentrate the text on those would improve this section. --W. D. Hamilton 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It might make sense to break down this and the genetic explanations sections into subsections for each of their main arguments.--Urthogie 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SS is in use on this article. I don't think the genetics section needs any more content -- explanation of the existing context or rebalancing of relative space is always a work in progress. The interested reader can get a explication of the genetic position from any of a number of prominent links. --W. D. Hamilton 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like we already make use of some subsections.  Why would WP:SS not allow for more of this?--Urthogie 19:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considerations of size and "Levels of desired details". The existing subsections already push the meaning of SS to its limits. Ideally, a SS section would be about as concise as the lead block of an article is. I imagine that a 3rd level of headings would only invite further growth of the text, which would eliminate the macro/micro benefits of SS. --W. D. Hamilton 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see what you mean.  I guess we'll just try to organize the arguments through the lead paragraph.--Urthogie 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you also be amenable to trimming out other specific examples not directly related to R&I, such as brain-size -> reaction time -> IQ?  If we're removing indirect evidence on one side, it seems reasonable to remove it on the other side as well, and restrict examples only to direct measurements of race and intelligence. --JereKrischel 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing about the schizophrenia paper is directly or indirectly related to "race and intelligence"; it is not evidence for anything, but rather an example of a point for which there is actually no dispute. OTOH, a reading of papers by pro-hereditarians will reveal that they frequently discuss "brain-size -> reaction time -> IQ". My point is that the particular schizo example is unnecessary and irrelevant and adds nothing that a properly worded general description could not achieve. The claim it provides an example of is universally accepted and so could even go in the intro sub-section. --W. D. Hamilton 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if there is indirect evidence for a link between R&I, we allow it, but if there is indirect evidence for the lack of a link between R&I, we don't allow it?  AFAIK, Lieberman and others have made the point that heritability is not equivalent to genetic causality.  And if it is "universally accepted" that heritability is dependent on environment, then shouldn't we mention that any claim that something is "heritable" is not particularly good evidence that something is caused by genetics? --JereKrischel 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not getting my point. The sentence which the schizo example is an example for is not only perfectly relevant but universally (by all sides) agreed upon. It's the schizo example itself which has no relevance. The content of the example is totally uninformative about R&I. Better to have two sentences that carefully explain the point than one sentence to explain and one sentence to give an unrelated example. Moreover, we might as well put the claim in the intro paragraph because it is a notion upon which both arguments are based. --W. D. Hamilton 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're explaining your point well either.  Shouldn't we include an example which is "perfectly relevant" and "universally agreed upon"?  On the other hand, if you'd like to start pruning the article, and removing "examples", I'd be more than happy to suggest the removal of other "examples" which seem misleading and irrelevant. --JereKrischel 08:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular *example* isn't relevant *at all*. The *principle* that the example is supposed to exemplify (given in the sentence before it) is relevant. AFAIK, there's no reason at all for that example to be given -- no data was derived from that particular study that is any more relevant to R&I than any other study. It's not an example about race or intelligence; it's about immigrants and schizophrenia. --W. D. Hamilton 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is directly relevant to the idea of heritability, which is highly relevant to the idea of R&I.  Given that the example exemplifies the principle mentioned before it, it seems particularly relevant and well founded.  On the other hand, if you'd like to prune the article and remove examples which exemplify principles, I'd be more than happy to help. --JereKrischel 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in question is in need of clean-up. If this sentence can't go, then I can't imagine you would allow anything else to go either. Is this section now set in stone, never to shrink to a reasonable size? Bigger simply isn't better. I resisted Urthogie's suggestion (above) that the genetics section include more detail for the same reason. A short and concentrated text is necessary and sufficient for readability in the explanations sections. If I find time, I'll try again to make improvements. --W. D. Hamilton 07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental explanations - cleanup from October 2006 

message: if we can't trim out the schizo example, then there's no hope for that section. why do we need an example about schizophrenia changing in immigrants? if environments are meaningfully different, then you can't generalize from WGH to GBH without extra data. this is knowable a priori. an example related to "race and intelligence" would be much better if an example is needed at all.
the intro should be able to tackle the basics, such as the universally agreed upon considerations. --W. D. Hamilton 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you also be amenable to trimming out other specific examples not directly related to R&I, such as brain-size -> reaction time -> IQ?  If we're removing indirect evidence on one side, it seems reasonable to remove it on the other side as well, and restrict examples only to direct measurements of race and intelligence. --JereKrischel 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing about the schizophrenia paper is directly or indirectly related to "race and intelligence"; it is not evidence for anything, but rather an example of a point for which there is actually no dispute. OTOH, a reading of papers by pro-hereditarians will reveal that they frequently discuss "brain-size -> reaction time -> IQ". My point is that the particular schizo example is unnecessary and irrelevant and adds nothing that a properly worded general description could not achieve. The claim it provides an example of is universally accepted and so could even go in the intro sub-section. --W. D. Hamilton 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if there is indirect evidence for a link between R&I, we allow it, but if there is indirect evidence for the lack of a link between R&I, we don't allow it?  AFAIK, Lieberman and others have made the point that heritability is not equivalent to genetic causality.  And if it is "universally accepted" that heritability is dependent on environment, then shouldn't we mention that any claim that something is "heritable" is not particularly good evidence that something is caused by genetics? --JereKrischel 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not getting my point. The sentence which the schizo example is an example for is not only perfectly relevant but universally (by all sides) agreed upon. It's the schizo example itself which has no relevance. The content of the example is totally uninformative about R&I. Better to have two sentences that carefully explain the point than one sentence to explain and one sentence to give an unrelated example. Moreover, we might as well put the claim in the intro paragraph because it is a notion upon which both arguments are based. --W. D. Hamilton 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're explaining your point well either.  Shouldn't we include an example which is "perfectly relevant" and "universally agreed upon"?  On the other hand, if you'd like to start pruning the article, and removing "examples", I'd be more than happy to suggest the removal of other "examples" which seem misleading and irrelevant. --JereKrischel 08:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular *example* isn't relevant *at all*. The *principle* that the example is supposed to exemplify (given in the sentence before it) is relevant. AFAIK, there's no reason at all for that example to be given -- no data was derived from that particular study that is any more relevant to R&I than any other study. It's not an example about race or intelligence; it's about immigrants and schizophrenia. --W. D. Hamilton 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is directly relevant to the idea of heritability, which is highly relevant to the idea of R&I.  Given that the example exemplifies the principle mentioned before it, it seems particularly relevant and well founded.  On the other hand, if you'd like to prune the article and remove examples which exemplify principles, I'd be more than happy to help. --JereKrischel 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in question is in need of clean-up. If this sentence can't go, then I can't imagine you would allow anything else to go either. Is this section now set in stone, never to shrink to a reasonable size? Bigger simply isn't better. I resisted Urthogie's suggestion (above) that the genetics section include more detail for the same reason. A short and concentrated text is necessary and sufficient for readability in the explanations sections. If I find time, I'll try again to make improvements. --W. D. Hamilton 07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  schizophrenia 

message: *I said I'd give a week for each discussion past its end.  The first removed claim has not been discussed since a week.  Can I remove it?--Urthogie 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  two questions for the editors 

message: I was just here to check up on this page for winter break.  On my next vacation I'll continue discussion and apply what consensus is reached on.  Sorry for the sudden leave, it's just that checking sources and whatnot isn't the most socialable activity during the school year.  Till next time, --Urthogie 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gone for a while 

message: Exactly why the Pioneer Fund is criticzed of is hidden in footnotes while the arguments of defenders are presented in the main body.Ultramarine 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To what does this refer? --W. D. Hamilton 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material previously in the footnotes.Ultramarine 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still can't tell what you mean? --W. D. Hamilton 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see no problem with the current text, fine.Ultramarine 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't know what text is under dispute. --W. D. Hamilton 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see no problem with current text (only difference is moving of material from two footnotes to main body), then fine.Ultramarine 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Opinions regarding the goals of organizations and politics in general does not need to be published in peer-reviewed articles.Ultramarine 13:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about WP:NPOV not WP:RS. --W. D. Hamilton 16:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If some significant argument is missing, add it. NPOV is not an argument for excluding some views.Ultramarine 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV requires a hierarchy of views (by, roughly, commonality) and a delineation/distinction/attribution of views (not a mixture), neither of which is being satisfied by the current text. The previous text said roughly x are the major critics of the pf and Keith Booker was left as example of the range of views. NPOV also doesn't require that some particular fact appear in any particular article, only somewhere in WP. not everything that's been said about PF is worth writing in this article. --W. D. Hamilton 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with him as an example of this view of the fund?Ultramarine 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, he's not distinguished from Tucker. They are given equal weight. The previous text was an attempt to correct this implied equivalence. Everyone cites Tucker; no one cites Booker (obviously). That distinction makes Booker nearly irrelevant. --W. D. Hamilton 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly stated who Keith Brooker is. If there is something missing regading who Tucker is, add it. The view of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a significant view.Ultramarine 19:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Booker is the president of the Delaware chapter of NAACP. He doesn't represent the group. Moreover, is it a common view among scholars that hereditarians are motivated by Nazi-beliefs? --W. D. Hamilton 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tucker certainly notes Nazists among those funded. Regardless, again, you do not need to a scholar to criticze an advocacy group, implications of research, or possibly causes for doing research.Ultramarine 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tucker certainly notes Nazists among those funded. Of course that's quite different than what's said by Booker. you do not need to a scholar - you don't need to be, but it does make a difference. the actual point i was making is the NPOV criteria of majority/minority/fringe views. which does booker represent? which does tucker represent? by juxtaposing the two, it is implied that both represent a common view, and moreover that both are canonical representatives of the views they espouse. NPOV is pretty clear on all this. --W. D. Hamilton 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is not stating that these persons have the same view. The readers can form their own opinions, considering who they are are and what they state.Ultramarine 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Juxtaposing them we create the impression that they have "equivalently" important views (not identical views). The previous text expliciting built the distinction of who are the major critics. Booker by an definition is not a major critic. --W. D. Hamilton 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous text hide the criticisms while presenting praise in the main text. Juxtapositioning two authors do not mean equivalent, as it does not numerous other places in the article.Ultramarine 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Equivalence of importance' or relevance or representatives is implied by ommision. You can't object to my objection merely by saying that the previous version was also not acceptable for some other reason. --W. D. Hamilton 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My claim is that Booker (as the most extreme example) is not notable in himself as a critic of the research. AFAIK, this is the only thing he has every said about it -- a quote taken from a news story. At the very least, some kind of qualification about what views are taken as representing common versus uncommon views is required. The only context now is simple juxtaposition with quite notable figures. In other sections (hopefully), equivalently notable figures/views are present side by side, but non-notable figures/views aren't. --W. D. Hamilton 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something probably needs to be done with the "bias" section as per the discussion below. --W. D. Hamilton 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about removing that particular quote since the link is dead for me? Any other problem? Ultramarine 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll review carefully if that change is made. --W. D. Hamilton 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about the Pioneer Fund excluded or hidden 

message: # "earlier studies" about BW gap - Flynn does not believe that the scores of adults have changed, only children. 
# "have narrowed" - flynn/murray debate appears to focus on whether the scores are currently narrowing among children or whether there was a one time narrowing among children
# trade book - there is no fundamental difference between a trade book and a book published in an academic press. you can include published criticisms, but you can't eliminate things as central as lynn's book.
# "conclude"/"claim" - there is no difference when each is cited and there is no dispute over the conclusion/claim, but claim does connote doubt where none appears justified.
--W. D. Hamilton 18:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My answers is presented in context above.Ultramarine 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from above for attention - edits by ultramarine 

message: this concerns me about the uncritical reporting of boas' results: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12374854
:These results contradict Boas' original findings and demonstrate that they may no longer be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology.
these considerations, added to the age of boas' work, suggest that we must be very careful about what we say is actually established by boas. --W. D. Hamilton 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been contradicted by later studies, see the Boas article.Ultramarine 19:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There seem to be no discussion regarding that there has been significant change in cranial size, similar to the Flynn effect. The implications are certainly discussed.Ultramarine 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be no discussion  where? I don't get your sentence? --W. D. Hamilton 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All seem to agree that there has been an significant increase in cranial size. The implications and causes are certainly discussed, similarly to the Flynn effect.Ultramarine 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "similarly to the Flynn effect" you mean that is has had no effect on the BW gap, that's really quite important, no? That more or less makes the results meaningless to this article, no? If not meaningless, then we need to spell out what people take to be the meaning if it's going to be presented. --W. D. Hamilton 19:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boas and later anthropologists certainly thought and find this important.Ultramarine 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's missing right now is (1) a modern citation to support the linking of Boas to the IQ debate (a cite from Boas would just be history), and (2) a proper accounting of the "within-group only" nature of the changes that Boas is argued to have found (Jantz 2004). --W. D. Hamilton 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see the Boas article here in Wikipedia for follow-up studies to the Jantz study. As noted in these articles, these findings remain valid and discussed also today.Ultramarine 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, you're talking about the wrong study. Should I assume that you've lost interest in this? --W. D. Hamilton 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have not. See Franz_Boas#Physical_AnthropologyUltramarine 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate as outlined in the Boas article is fine and we should simply link to it. The article that seems to actually link Boas' findings to BW difference in brain size is the Jantz 2004 paper, which I quoted from just above. The findings are of no relationship, which certainly requires a change to the current text if Boas' findings are to be discussed at all. --20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are discussing a differnt article by Jantz. But this article does not in any way contradict an increase in brain size. Some quotes:
"but changes in
infant health and nutrition appear to be the most credible explanation for the
craniofacial secular changes in American populations(van Wieringen, 1986)." "
We agree with Angel (1982) that the relationship between cranial base height,
nutrition, and health are real.""While there appears to be a strong relationship between cranial base height,
nutrition, and health, changes in vault shape are probably not because cranial
base growth is inhibited by the weight of the brain when health and nutrition
are poor. Instead, as health and nutrition have improved, the brain has become
larger and the vault has increased in height (Miller and Corsellis, 1977). To
accommodate these modifications, there have likely been allometric changes in
the direction of growth (Kouchi, 2000). Among American Blacks and Whites,
increases in brain size and cranial vault height due to improved health and
nutrition appear to be associated with a decreased growth rate in vault breadth
and an increased growth rate in vault length.""Secular change in American crania is proximately
related to a decrease in cranial base breadth and an increase in cranial capacity,
and ultimately a reflection of improved infant growth due to better health and
nutrition. The environment of 20th century Americans has no parallel in history.
Activity levels are at an all-time low, and diet has improved to the point
where overnutrition has surpassed undernutrition as our most serious malnutrition
problem (Flegal et al., 1998). In addition, epidemic infectious diseases
are now mostly controlled, and mortality is at an all-time low (Armstrong et al.,
1999). It is not surprising that there is a biological response to this unparalleled
environmental change."Ultramarine 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: this article does not in any way contradict an increase in brain size. Right, but it says that changes are confined to within-group change. The parallel course of secular change in Blacks and Whites, combined with their failure to converge upon a common morphology (see Figure 5), supports the hypothesis that genetic variation between the two groups is reflected in cranial morphology, despite exposure to a common environment. American Blacks and Whites undergo similar secular trends, but genetic differences between them are maintained. This seems to be crucial for this article, no? And so we should add this detail. But when this detail is added, is there anything verifiable that is still of interest about the brain size changes for this article? --W. D. Hamilton 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not talking about cranial size here, which is the important thing. There might well be some genetic differences in cranial shapes.Ultramarine 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the edits I made and tell me if I'm missing something here. --W. D. Hamilton 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Jantz is not talking about skull volume in that comment, but other forms of morphology. As he states elsewhere, "Among American Blacks and Whites, increases in brain size and cranial vault height due to improved health and nutrition"Ultramarine 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Morphology --> size based on my first readings of the paper. The size is largely a product of the base plate morphology from my reading. I agree that Jantz appears to be agreeing that there has been increases in both Blacks and White. --W. D. Hamilton 21:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he using various measurments, but not any size or volume measurment when making the statement you are citing.Ultramarine 21:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to be talking about all the morphological changes that underlie volume (e.g. vault height). His first PC is the one that separates blacks and whites. There's a lot of discussion of volume too, but note the text I wrote is only in relation to Boas. He directly cites his conclusions as having implications for Boas'. Is there something about this that I'm misunderstanding? Maybe you know/see something I don't. --W. D. Hamilton 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your own original reserach, he using various measurments, but not any size or volume measurment when making the statement you are citing. In contrast, my quote is when he talks about size.Ultramarine 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm willing to accept the possibility that I'm somehow confused about the entire issue, but the text seems pretty clear to me. Do you know of any additional articles that discussion BW differences in volume/morphology etc? --W. D. Hamilton 21:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in the wrong sectin, please move. No other articles really needed, the article cites numerous other articles. Again, when he talks about size, he notes an increase both for blacks and white probably due to nutrition.Ultramarine 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: when he talks about size, he notes an increase both for blacks and white probably due to nutrition - right, and that the persistence of difference must be due to genetics. what i'm asking is about publications that discuss BW differences in the context of longitudinal changes as Jantz 2004 does. is the only reason to cite boas that brain size varies with nutrition? if so, then the idea relative-morphology is probably maintained by genetic differences is important too. --W. D. Hamilton 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He makes no such statemet regarding size and does not state that different morophology must lead to differences in brain size. Howeve, I think we could mention both the increase in brain size but also that other cranial measures are not converging. Obviously the finding that brain size has increased is very interesting for this field.Ultramarine 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is improving, but "other" measurements is probably inaccurate. The PC analysis that is the basis for the BW conclusions isn't in terms of raw measurements, but rather a combination of multiple measurements. The actual factor loadings appear to be in another paper, so I'm not sure what those measurements are. But based on the text, they measure what changed about skulls over time and what is different about black and white skulls as groups. While volume is different in both cases (time and race), it shows that race differences are not the kind of differences that occur with time. AFAIK, this analysis is comprehensive of all considerations that go into a consideration of size -- it superceeds size. If I'm correct about this - by that I mean if I'm reading this in the way that it was intended to be understood - then that's quite a bit more than merely showing that "other" measurements didn't change between blacks and white. When I say morphology --> size, it appears to me that that is an implicit assumption of the discussion in the paper. This is why I asked for other papers on the same topic. Maybe they would clear up the issue. --W. D. Hamilton 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  boas error? 

message: :::::Also, I didn't cite Deary, the review article in Heredity did.  Not sure if it is our place to argue the point with the reviewer of IQatWoN - definitely seems OR, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The entire paragraph appears to not be supported by citations. There's nothing in lieberman about reaction time that i can find. The book review is criticizing the use of reaction time measures in international comparisons. I don't see how this can be said to directly relate to the reports of reaction time differences by race in the primary research literature. Moreover, we can't be complicit in misquoting a source. It is within our power to leave out a misquoting if it's obvious. In this case it is. The only NPOV way around it is to say that the opinions are those of the reviewing author, but since he's talking about reaction time in a different context, that won't work. There may be criticisms of reaction time, but we'd need to look outside of book reviews of IQatWoN. Papers that cite the original studies could have criticisms, but I've never seen them mentioned in any reviews. --W. D. Hamilton 03:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, weak and confusing correlations between IQ and reaction times, which L&V naively take as an index of 'the efficiency of the brain' (p 66), are not 'theoretically tractable - This clearly is the critique outlined in the paragraph.  And the source is not being misquoted at all.  You may interpret the citation as a misquote, but I certainly don't agree with you. --JereKrischel 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is being used in a different context there. The purpose of RT data used by Rushton and Jensen, contrary to the claim which is currently attributed to "some" scientists and cited to Leiberman, is to show that the IQ differences bleed through to the underlying biological correlates of g. Criticisms of that point would be on target. Claiming that RT is not "theoretically tractable" isn't a criticism aimed at this point. At the very least, we need to have concordance between criticisms and the underlying claim being criticized. --W. D. Hamilton 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation of whether or not Liberman's assertions are contrary or not to the intentions of Rushton/Jensen definitely fall within OR.  Lieberman makes the critique, and we report it - arguing Rushton's case isn't our job.  Also, the IQatWoN review in Heredity clearly makes hay out of the "weak and confusing correlations".  The underlying claim is that race -> brain size -> reaction time -> IQ.  The critique of that claim occurs on both the level of "race -> brain size", as well as "reaction time -> IQ".  There is concordance. --JereKrischel 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, race -> brain size -> reaction time -> IQ is completely contrived, but also false. If it is completely contrived, why do we have a section dedicated to illustrating that connection?  Am I imagining things, or are you agreeing with me?  It seems that you're asking for a specificity in some cases that isn't required -> if the criticism of race->brain size is part of a blanket criticism that may include other traits, what problem is there?  Are we to say that blanket criticisms that apply to more than one claim cannot be applied? --JereKrischel 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not agreeing with you. I'm saying that your misunderstanding the subject, and thus (seemingly) inadvertently writing false claims. For example, there's no discussion of reaction time by Leiberman. Read my comment in that light. --W. D. Hamilton 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In the brain size section, the last paragraph is mischaracterizing Leiberman, but the other paragraph are pretty accurate. Do you see this now? --W. D. Hamilton 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, I think you've simply made several mistakes. --W. D. Hamilton 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further inspection, I think we have a larger issue here -> the citations given for reaction time studies simply do not address race.  Including those references seems patently OR. --JereKrischel 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And studies that look at the correlation between brain size and IQ do not at the same time look at race. However, the existence of such correlations is necessary background material to explain why race differences in these variables is relevant. This link is supported by every paper that looks at about race and brain size or race and reaction time in the context of intelligence. Thus, this isn't SYNTHESIS and can't be OR. --W. D. Hamilton 08:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertions that such background material are supportive to a given point of view is speculative and OR at its worst.  It would be just as appropriate, by your logic, to sprinkle in, at every mention of the word "race", the strong disagreements people have with the very utility of the concept as a proxy for genetics -> it is definitely necessary background material to explain why the use of those categories is a mistake.  This concept is supported in hundreds of papers critical of the genetic hypothesis.  Would you favor including that kind of SYNTHESIS? --JereKrischel 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you don't understand, but the example you gave is completely different than the disputed situation. In one case, a piece of background data (correlation with IQ) is given. This background is usually if not always given in papers when the race difference is described. It presents the motivation for work being described, establishing the relevance of the variable to intelligence, but has no further part to play. It is appropriate in one and only one position in the article, and is not a disputed finding in itself. In the example you gave, you are suggesting that your favored view about race be interjected at points in the article where it would wrongly imply that a debate has been carried out in the literature about that particular topics in the article wrt the utility of race. The points in the article would be those that you chose on the basis of your own opinion. The view you would present is itself so controversial and complex that it requires a >100k WP article to describe it (see race). --- The correlations are background, essentially introducing the definition of the variables of interest wrt intelligence, and their inclusion is supported by a body of literature. Your suggestion OTOH is truly SYNTHESIS. --W. D. Hamilton 08:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the example I gave, I'm simply giving "background data" -> information which repudiates the use of "race" as a proxy for genetics.  Although I may not dispute the findings of some scientific study that asserts a relationship between reaction time and IQ, it is inappropriate to put that "background data" in without also giving some mention that the study may not be supportive of the genetic hypothesis because it did not address BGH.  I think you cited earlier, It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;.  If your example is not a violation, then why wouldn't the same be true for citing lieberman's critique of race as a proxy for genetics, every time you try to add a study which has made no claims on race? --JereKrischel 09:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I don't understand why you don't understand, but the example you gave is completely different than the disputed situation. If I repeated myself? SNYTHESIS means putting together two things that aren't previously put together. Citing Leiberman as a critic of studies that link reaction time to race is SNYTHESIS. Citing the correlation between reaction time and IQ is supported by the fact that the studies which look at reaction time differences by race cite that correlation as their motivation. It would be SNYTHESIS to cite essentially any other finding except that there is correlation between reaction time and IQ (anything that hasn't been directly linked to the topic previously). --W. D. Hamilton 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing Lieberman as a critic of the use of race as a proxy is just as relevant "background information" as citing a reaction time to IQ study that didn't look at the concept of race.  The fact that studies of reaction time and race cite reaction time to IQ studies is just as true as the fact that critiques of reaction time and race studies cite the cluster vs. cline data.  You put yourself in an inherent POV pushing position when you assert that the only "background information" that can be inserted is that which supports your POV.  How about this, can you give me an example of citing "background information" which would not support your POV? --JereKrischel 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Leiberman doesn't discuss reaction time. But the the brain size studies really are motivated by the findings of a correlation between reaction time and IQ. You see? The particular details of this situation make the one not just appropriate but necessary and the other not appropriate. Based on your reasoning, we need to delete everything in the intro block about IQ and race because it isn't directly about race and intelligence. Secondarily, on practical grounds, people reading the article need to understand what reaction time measures have to do with intelligence because writing about reaction time doesn't make sense without it. In contrast, they don't need the race/not-race debate brought up at every mention of the word race. --W. D. Hamilton 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The motivation of the brain size studies seems just as relevant when dealing with the utility of race as a proxy for genetics.  Simply saying that there is some background motivation doesn't address my issue of your POV pushing.  Please, give me an example of any sort of inclusion that would be appropriate, but is against your POV, or unsupportive of the genetic hypothesis research you've cited?  I believe you're simply trying to frame the question in such a way that it is impossible to include any sort of debunking, but permissible to include supportive yet indirectly related evidence. --JereKrischel 10:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We're saying the same thing.  If you want to say race==genetic clusters, and as such is a good proxy for the genetic traits related to intelligence, you'd still be making the same argument.  Trying to assert that "clusters versus clines" is any different than "race is a poor proxy for genetics" is a stretch. --JereKrischel 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "clusters versus clines" == "race is a good/poor representation of human biodiversity (genetic and/or phenotypic)". the debate is old, complex, on-going, and by many accounts totally mired in politics. --W. D. Hamilton 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Lieberman's paper includes views from more than Lieberman (Rushton has a section in there too).  I've reworded the paragraph a bit more. --JereKrischel 10:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  brain size paragraph that cites lieberman 

message: here are actual reviews of RDI with specific attention to the reliability of the results (not representativeness, which isn't important for RDI) --W. D. Hamilton 07:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the numbers accurate? I checked a sample of 40 of the 615 rows in the IQ tables against their sources—selected mostly on the basis of being readily accessible to me. Result: 14 of the 40, about 1 in 3, showed discrepancies, although mostly minor ones. For example, there were 9 with discrepancies in Ns, such as using an overall N from the study instead of the actual N on which the particular IQ was based. In a similar number of cases, the ages or age ranges were a bit off. The IQs were harder to check, since often I did not have the original norm tables used, or there was some uncertainty in applying Flynn corrections, but when I could, my estimates and the values in the tables were typically within a couple of IQ points. I only came across one large discrepancy—an IQ 14 points too high (in Table 12.1, row 20; due, according to an e-mail from Lynn, to a clerical error in adding instead of subtracting a Flynn correction). The citations and references were, on the whole, accurate. In short: Yes, the general trends in the tables are probably dependable, if the assumptions regarding Flynn effects, etc., are correct, but it is prudent (as always) to check with original sources before quoting particular results.
note: table 12.1 lists studies of native americans --W. D. Hamilton 07:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we wanted the data, can we rely on Lynn to have given an accurate account of them? I do not pretend to have read the originals of more than a handful of the papers and books cited by Lynn, but it just so happens that I wrote two of them myself, and Lynn has simply got their data wrong. Table 6.2 gives the results of 13 estimates of the IQ scores of south Asians in Britain and Australia. The median score is said to be 89, and similar for Indians and Pakistanis (as is to be expected since they are the same racial group). In fact, three British studies have given the same IQ tests to Indian and Pakistani children, and in all three, Indian children have outscored the Pakistanis by 4–6 IQ points. Mackintosh and Mascie-Taylor (1986) reported IQ scores of 97 and 93 for 10-year-old children of Indian and Pakistani origin respectively, but Lynn incorrectly attributes both scores to Pakistanis, one said to be for children resident in Britain more than 4 years, the other for more recent immigrants. West, Mascie-Taylor, and Mackintosh (1992) reported IQ scores of 91 and 85 for Indian and Pakistani children, but in Lynn's table these have mysteriously turned into scores of 87 and 88. The errors may not be particularly important, and I do not know how typical they are. But they do not increase my confidence in Lynn's scholarship.
note: the version of the data table i received seems to have these corrections already. --W. D. Hamilton 07:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you've received some special data table, and compiled a graph from it yourself, surely you agree that's OR. --JereKrischel 21:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A friend copied all the data from the book, he or I must have fixed the mackintosh numbers back in when this was first online. you can't be OR by having copied data from a book. your attempts to find OR are a waste of our time. --W. D. Hamilton 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but "a friend" hardly qualifies as a reliable source, don't you agree?  Neither is it appropriate for you to correct the numbers -> that is definitely OR. --JereKrischel 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, AFAIK, the word "reliable" only occurs in the R&I article here once...I don't think we have an argument about "reliability" that is relevant here. --JereKrischel 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: we don't have an argument about representativeness at all. by reliability i mean accuracy (which is actually a mix of reliability and validity). --W. D. Hamilton 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The critique specifically address the representativeness of the data, not the reliability.  I'm unsure why you're trying to bring up reliability at all, we don't have an argument about that. --JereKrischel 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no criticisms of RDI wrt representativeness. It would make little sense to make such a criticism because of the very different nature of the work. Criticisms of representativeness aimed at IQatWoN do not naturally reflect on RDI as well. --W. D. Hamilton 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The data used by both are the same, aren't they?  I think any critique of Lynn's data collections follows both books, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 08:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) the data are overlapping, but non-identical. There are many times more studies in RDI. (2) No, but reliability criticisms would naturally follow. Representativeness criticisms are those that say the samples from IQatWoN is not representative of the country from which it is a sample, and thus those criticisms do not naturally translate when the samples are used to estimate the IQ of the race to which the sampled individuals belong. For example, this would follow if for no other reason than that Lynn enumerates far fewer races than countries. If the criticism is that the data is just wrong to begin with, or that Lynn is a racist, then that does obviously translate. --W. D. Hamilton 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Representativeness criticisms assert that the studies Lynn cites are not representative of what he asserts them to be.  So when he takes a small study in a single country, with a small sample size errors of methodology, and then claims it represents an indigenous population, and therefore a certain "race", he is being criticized. --JereKrischel 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You simply cannot translate a claim that the studies are unrepresentative of a nation into a claim that they are unrepresentative of a race/continent. It's too much of a leap to make without a publication to back it up. --W. D. Hamilton 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that flawed data can be masked simply by increasing the number of data sets you use?  I think it's quite clear that by Lynn's own admission, he has expanded upon his IQatWoN data, not filtered, replaced or revisited the claims of its unrepresentative nature.  The criticism seems just as valid if he's using much of the same data. --JereKrischel 10:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rdi reviews 

message: It is quite interesting that in a society where racism still persists in both subtile and blatant ways in many places one must use only "accepted channels" of research to support views that either highlight the existence of racism, or views call in to question racist notions: such as the idea that a huge, poorly defined, homogenous group of people are somehow inferior to another huge, homogenous, poorly defined group of people. And despite all nobel aspiration of 'research' that is what this topic is really about. Racism has existed clearly in "genetic" research in the past. The claim that modern research could not possibly be subject to such bias is naive. That all said, I do think that some people are working honestly to sort this question out. However, without proper historical context all of these articles carry far more certainty and credibility than they merit. This article ought to explore some of the reasons the concept of race was invented in the first place, the people who invented and the purpose it served. It should show a complete history of the idea of linking race and intelligence from the very beginning. futurebird 08:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that would make an interesting subarticle which would have to grow out of the existing history section. however, most science articles do not devote the kind of space you are suggesting to an indepth history, and so neither should this one. exploring various views on race in more than a summary fashion is outside the purview of this article, but is taken up by the race article. --W. D. Hamilton 08:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a scientific journal. It's an encyclopedia. --futurebird 09:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the topic is about a science. Compare with Evolution. --W. D. Hamilton 10:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution was never used to justify the murder and oppression of vast groups of people. futurebird 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nazis, social Darwinism, eugenics, etc. Notably, they overlap with this topic. --W. D. Hamilton 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think one of the major problems with this article is the way it has turned into a virtual journal article, exposing detail, argument and counter argument to the nth degree, in such a way that just doesn't seem encyclopedic.  It may be more useful to prune out the punch/counter-punch sections, and add in a historical context section that gives a good overview (see Lieberman's table on the changing hierarchies of races for an example of a good historical brief). --JereKrischel 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're describing is in part a failure to fully apply summary style, but changing the topic of the article from science to history isn't a solution and isn't tenable given the lay of the publication landscape on this topic. We write to reflect the literature. --W. D. Hamilton 09:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you're writing to reflect the literature that supports your particular POV.  Arguably, you've created a wonderful paper worthy of inclusion into a science journal, but you've made a very poor encyclopedic article.  I'd be more than willing to help you setup a mediawiki installation for your gnxp domain so that you could pursue your OR in a more appropriate venue. --JereKrischel 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like there has already been a start on gnxpwiki.com, I suggest, WDHamilton, that this article, and your extensive original research, be moved to your own wiki, and put as an external link.  This article should be refactored to be more encyclopedic. --JereKrischel 09:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Context

message: I've often heard it suggested that "black" people possess a better sense of rhythm (or melody?). Anyone know if any actual research has been put into this theory? --Rebroad 23:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a race and musical ability article?

message: On average, being one shade lighter has about the same effect as having an additional year of education," Hersch said.
...Hersch took into consideration other factors that could affect wages, such as English-language proficiency, education, occupation, race or country of origin, and found that skin tone still seemed to make a difference in earnings.
That means that if two similar immigrants from Bangladesh, for example, came to the United States at the same time, with the same occupation and ability to speak English, the lighter-skinned immigrant would make more money on average.... Although many cultures show a bias toward lighter skin, Hersch said her analysis shows that the skin-color advantage was not due to preferential treatment for light-skinned people in their country of origin. The bias, she said, occurs in the U.S.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_re_us/skin_tone_income
Another source for "environmental" impacts. I would like to see this brought up in relation to the other information on income. Of course, the article is still locked... futurebird 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''New''' study on relation between skin tone and income

message: The line: "Tucker have argued that some...." should read:"Tucker has argued that some...."There should also be a period before the start of this sentence.--137.99.174.125 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical Error