Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 43

message: on the suggestion that the gre image needs to present the SD and N, rather than just the mean:
* the only way to show both SD and N at the same time is to show SEM, which is near zero for such large samples
* if you show just SD, it will only look like the current graph but with approximately equal length bars sticking out of each. there's terribly little difference in the SDs:
** the other category is more variable, naturally
** the scores of Blacks are less variable across the board, so they actually come out looking worse if bars are added
** the verbal scores of asians are highly variable, also to be expected
* there is no discussion of SDs anywhere in the section (article?) and there isn't enough to really say much about them if you were to try to build such a section. mostly what you'd find is the variance in the black population (for IQ) is smaller than variance in the white population (but the mean is lower too, so the SD/mean is about the same)
--W. D. Hamilton 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By interpreting the data in a novel way, you change the message expressed by the GRE table provided in the original source.  I'm not arguing that the graph should look "better" or "worse" than it does, I'm arguing that your graph is OR and misleading because it selectively removes data given in the original table.  If you were to add bars, and make a note of the sample sizes in the description page of the image, I would be happy with it as a fair representation of the data table referenced. --JereKrischel 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Your interpretation of WP:NOR is totally unorthodox. Not reporting all of the details is something that encyclopedias do. If excluding essentially irrelevant details is WP:NOR then the encyclopedia couldn't function. You will not find your redaction theory of NOR in the NOR page. It's very simple. NOR means arriving at novel conclusions. You can't arrive at a novel conclusion by simply not presenting all of the details of something. --W. D. Hamilton 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are arriving at a novel conclusion by selectively omitting important data.  If I were to assert that the average human height was 7'3", because I omitted all humans except for NBA players, it would certainly count as a novel conclusion. --JereKrischel 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense in the current context. Are you familiar with means and variances? The mean is the issue discussed by the literature, and so we show the mean. --W. D. Hamilton 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deciding to take the discussion from the literature and use it as a selective filter on the data being quoted is clearly OR. --JereKrischel 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Showing a graph of the data that's being discussed in the literature is not OR. The suggestion that not showing the SDs from a data set constitutes OR is equally nonsensical. There is no content to your argument. It appears to be based merely on a false understanding of what NOR means. --W. D. Hamilton 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Showing a graph of the data that's being discussed, but failing to include relevant data, is OR.  There is a simple answer here - adjust the graph, please. --JereKrischel 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I outlined the reasons why it's impractical to show both N and SD in a graph where N is large. I can easily update the graph, but without looking closely you wouldn't be able to tell the difference (error bars of ~0 height). If, OTOH, you accept that we just can't show the content of the data table in the graph, then I stand by the original claim that we should show what's been discussed in the literature and not add details that are irrelevant. --W. D. Hamilton 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply show SD, and list N. --JereKrischel 06:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice edit, please put bars over the colored areas, so that the lower bound can be seen as well.  It is much more informative, and satisfies my WP:NOR concerns.  Thank you! --JereKrischel 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to believe that the irrelevance of equal length bars is lost on you. Per the 3rd bullet point in my initial post on this topic, there's a reason that within group variance isn't discussed. These are not "error" bars but descriptions of within group variance. When N is massive, even small differences in mean become statistically significant. --W. D. Hamilton 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bars coming out of each column should not be equal length (they certainly aren't so in the data table)...I haven't measured pixel by pixel, but I assume you captured the data as presented. --JereKrischel 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out above, the SDs are so similar that they are visually indistinguishable (at least to me). The absence of major differences in within group variance is a feature of IQ data that is sometimes but rarely noted. Variance just isn't a topic of interest AFAIK, and so the bars are not doing anything but making a complex graph hard to read. --W. D. Hamilton 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRE image 

message: Direct link to Image deletion discussion.
The section "world wide scores" contains material from a non acadmic trade book from a very dubious publisher, criticzed for publishing anti-semitic literature. The map should certainly be removed and a disclaimer regarding the publisher and the non academic status must be included.Ultramarine 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NY Times, WSJ, Penguin books, and others are not an academic press, nor are most publishers of book. The publisher itself is of absolutely no importance to the content of the book; the academic press / trade book distinction is irrelevant. The author is of course noteworthy, and the author is noted. In the case of this particular book, it is clearly a follow-on to Lynn's earlier paper by the same title and his previous book. No argument has been given about removal of the map other than the publisher. --W. D. Hamilton 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. University Press is quality mark which is why researchers publish their serious works there. Anyone can publish a private trade and make any claims.Ultramarine 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply beyond the scope of what WP demands from sources, and moreover is defeated by the fact that the book has been reviewed twice in peer-reviewed journals. This indicates that the authors of these journals take book as a serious scholarly work. Your opinions and those of search light magazine regarding the publisher of the book are not important to WP policy in light of that fact. --W. D. Hamilton 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, self-published sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. Many strange books like Mein Kampf has been reviewed in academic journals. Why did the author not use an academic publisher? The argument that he is persectued by everyone does not hold since the previous book was published by an academic publisher.Ultramarine 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is treated as a scholarly work by other scholars writing in the peer reviewed literature. This is the crucial and *sufficient* matter of fact on the issue. Arguments about the reputation of the book's publisher are thus moot. The suggestion that this isn't a scholarly work because it isn't published by an academic press are not supported by the treatment this book has received by other scholars. Publication by an academic press is not a necessary condition on scholarly work, as evidenced by the many scholarly works that are "trade books" (e.g. Free Press (publisher)). --W. D. Hamilton 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add something to the article to add support for the book and its claims, do so. However, again, we should certainly state the opposing views also. Wikipedia does differentiate sources on reliability, as do scholars in general. Anyone can self-publish something, which is not possible with University Press. What scholarly (not popular, having references and using statistical research) significant works are you thinking of that are self-published?Ultramarine 08:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the label self-published, but I assume you mean "trade book". Just look at the various works by scholars that are published by commercial (trade) publishers rather than academic imprints. Large reviews of subjects, because they are of broader interest, often get published by non-academic imprints because they are money-makers. The Bell Curve and The Blank Slate come to mind. I can't say whether Lynn was hoping to make more money or whether he's so controversial that academic imprints couldn't afford to have a "g Factor" incident where they print a book and then pull it off the shelves. In any case, you can't exclude Lynn's book and his findings from discussion on the basis of attacking the publisher. Outside of that criticism, I don't see any reason why the map is inappropriate. --W. D. Hamilton 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are proving my point, the Bell Curve is just a summary of prior research for the popular reader. Obviously it is possible to exclude and qualify sources due to its nature, Wikipedis does this all the time when considering reliability. Unreliable sources are simply excluded from Wikipedia without any demand that every claim in them should be contradicted in detail. However, we can cerainly mention the book if we include a disclaimer regarding its reliability.Ultramarine 18:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the map, it could be included if we have the disclaimer in the text.Ultramarine 18:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point out the opposing view about the rank order of IQ scores from different regions (all that's visible in the map). What comparable data source exists that can make claims about world-wide IQ that we could contrast with Lynn's rankings? Is there a good reason not to point out that there are four major clusterings of IQ scores worldwide and show how they are arranged on a map? I suspect what you mean is concern about the lowest scores. However, the map doesn't make any scores directly visible. Whether average African IQ is 70 or 80, it's lower than N. African IQ, which is what we're trying to convey. --W. D. Hamilton 18:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How about the current version? Ultramarine 18:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically good. I see some other problems not related to your edits that I'm going to flag. --W. D. Hamilton 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also removed OR image of bell curves and IQ by race - without citation of data, definitely violates WP:NOR.  Suggest someone find an existing image presented in some research, scan it, and use it as fair use. --JereKrischel 08:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, remove it. futurebird 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map and data from a non acadmic trade book from a very dubious publisher 

message: Why has this simple fact which relates to the credibility of the data been removed again?
futurebird 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why it was removed, but it should be phrased as a date, because what's 26 years now is 27 years next year. One problem is that the size of the gap shown is merely chosen by Gottfredson to correspond to the most common view (for adults). --W. D. Hamilton 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Data in graph are 26 years old

message: -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 January 2007
*I would support this as an interim solution until consensus can be determined on the old image. If there are no objections, I will replace the image in the article with this one, but leave the page protected. --causa sui talk 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the deletion discussion for the old image. There are more recent data mentioned here: .Ultramarine 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that is summarized here: Race_and_intelligence#U.S._Black-White_gap. Flynn and Dickens finds an adult BW gap of ~1.1 sd, but a smaller gap for children. This is apparently not new, but no one really thought much of it before Flynn -- but as Flynn points out Jensen recognized it previously. What is new in Flynn's report is that the gap found among children is smaller than previous (i.e. 60s/70s) reports. --W. D. Hamilton 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: IIRC, the newest adult IQ data in Dickens and Flynn's analysis is the 1997 AFQT, which I believe shows exactly the same gap as the 1981 WISC-R as currently drawn. --W. D. Hamilton 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the WJ-III, which they discard for some reason was 2001, but it showed a 1.05 sd gap for adults and a 0.99 SD gap for children. --W. D. Hamilton 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the debate has been about blacks and whites in the US. Having the "jarring" graphic is a part of that history. If you add historical context it will not be such a big problem.futurebird 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 70s and 80s it was. In the 90s and 00s, the scope has expanded, coincident with the population expansion of Asian and Hispanic minorities in the U.S. --W. D. Hamilton 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In California, the rise of the Asian campus, of the strict meritocracy, has come at the expense of historically underrepresented blacks and Hispanics. This year, in a class of 4809, there are only 100 black freshmen at the University of California at Los Angeles — the lowest number in 33 years. At Berkeley, 3.6 percent of freshmen are black, barely half the statewide proportion. (In 1997, just before the full force of Proposition 209 went into effect, the proportion of black freshmen matched the state population, 7 percent.) The percentage of Hispanic freshmen at Berkeley (11 percent) is not even a third of the state proportion (35 percent). White freshmen (29 percent) are also below the state average (44 percent).
=====Caption=====
Since saying "the data are 26 years old" requires constant updating, how about something like "18 years after The March on Washington" Since the data are all from the US, this should be OK. It would also help to add some much needed historical context and sensitivity to this article. The caption should, of course, note that this isn't international.futurebird 01:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps then, it should be renamed to Race and intelligence (United States). --JereKrischel 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea better than calling it 'groups and intelligence' though, a fair ammount of this relates to the UK too. So I don't think it'd work. futurebird 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could this resolve the dilema? 

message: Since saying "the data are 26 years old" requires constant updating, how about something like "18 years after The March on Washington" Since the data are all from the US, this should be OK. It would also help to add some much needed historical context and sensitivity to this article. The caption should, of course, note that this isn't international.futurebird 01:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption

message: Two-curve graph from Gottfredson should not lead the article, unless the article is only about the United States. Better in a US section. Jokestress 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps then, it should be renamed to Race and intelligence (United States). --JereKrischel 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea better than calling it 'groups and intelligence' though, a fair ammount of this relates to the UK too. So I don't think it'd work. futurebird 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph is US-centric

message: An anonymous user just deleted parts of the article, also making an incorrect statement, since the additions had been carefully explained. Obviously the article is not NPOV.Ultramarine 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large scale delettions 

message: I've protected this page from all edits and moves by non-admin users per the Wikipedia:Protection policy due to a protracted edit war. Please resolve disagreements about the content of the article on the talk page before reverting. --causa sui talk 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is protected 

message: it was removed by JK and had discussions about what various scholars thought about racism in relation to this subject. Slrubenstein's POV that the assumptions behind the research are racist was described and debated in that section. (yes, i know the whole last section needs work.) --W. D. Hamilton 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to a revision where I can look at the subsection? futurebird 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and thank you for making this suggestion. I feel like we've been butting heads for far too long over this topic. futurebird 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WD, forgive me, but I think you still need to address the issue of balance.  You may in fact do a NPOV job of citing literature, but when all you do is cite one POV, the article becomes POV pushing.  If you would do us the favor of finding just as much material contrary to your POV, and adding it in a neutral manner, as you do with the material that supports your POV, this article would be much better off.  You seem to be very well connected to the pro-hereditarian movement, and continually cite some of the latest research from prominent Pioneer Fund folk to bolster your case.  If you could spend even a fraction of that energy reporting on the latest research that repudiates the pro-hereditarian POV, you'd do us all a great service. --JereKrischel 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  restore the racism subsection 

message: As per the major source (APA) pointed out by WD, I suggest that we rename this series of articles to Groups and intelligence (United States), or Groups and intelligence (Developed countries). --JereKrischel 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not such a bad idea. Though, it might be too confusing, and there would be a redirect. futurebird 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Kevin, there would need to be good reasons for such a change. Britannica uses race and intelligence. Encarta has a similar formulation. The book by skeptic Fish uses the same title. There exists articles on race and articles on intelligence, and their titles persist despite the imprecisions you mention. (In reality, the distribution of African admixture among African Americans is quite tight, centered around ~80%, and IQ is the de facto measure of intelligence, with the caveat that it doesn't capture the full range of common sense meanings of the term.) Previous discussion of this topic occurred here and here. --W. D. Hamilton 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica actually uses "Race" and intelligence.  Perhaps we should put quotes around Race as well. --JereKrischel 03:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Britannica also is much more encyclopedic in its approach to "Race" and Intelligence.  It also denotes the "hereditarian belief" and "biological determinism", and does not use the term "partly-genetic".  It may be a good example for us to follow for a more encyclopedic article, rather than an in-depth meta-analysis research paper on the evidence for and against the hereditarian POV. --JereKrischel 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think an article on "Race and intellege" makes sense, since, from a historical perspective, that is how this controversy was originally framed. Also, I think it is what people will search for fisrt-- and those other topics are releted but not the same. futurebird 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a strong feeling, and if WD and FB concur, that's good enough for me.  --Kevin Murray 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups and Intelligence