Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 41

message: JK removed the intro paragraph and the table of comparisons. This is not appropriate. The reasons given were (1) not supported by citations and (2) straw man. Neither claim is supported. The material in (1) is a direct paraphrasing. The table of comparisons (2) is adapted and expanded from Rushton and Jensen's latest review. The claim that there are two major alternative views is widely supported and it constitutes the consensus view by far. The claim that it is a straw man is extrememly limited -- I know of only one author to make such a claim, and even then this was the only time to may knowledge that they had objected to this otherwise very old manner of characterizing the debate. --Rikurzhen 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Material in #1 was not direct paraphrasing.  p311 as cited does not make the claims stated regarding the "consensus of intelligence researchers".  Please provide a direct quote if you believe otherwise.  #2 is obviously a straw-man, making an assertion that is not representative of the anti-racialist point of view, even if Rushton and Jensen want to present it as a straw-man. --JereKrischel 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "A century of research" does not paraphrase into "The consensus among intelligence researchers is".  A better quote would be, "According to Pioneer Fund scholar Linda Gottfredson, a "century of research" has shown IQ differences among same-race individuals represent (a) real, (b) functionally important, and (c) substantially genetic differences in general intelligence (the g factor), and mean IQ differences between the races likewise reflect (d) real and (e) functionally important differences on the same g factor.." Insofar as columns, you'd have just as much problem with "genetic-only" and "partially-culture" columns (as used by Gil-White, for example).  It is simply POV pushing to present in such detail, a good argument against a bad one. --JereKrischel 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it would be according to the signatories of (I don't remember the name of the manifesto), but if memory serves correctly, there were about only 53 or so researcher who signed this. So, there is a consensus of 50 or so researchers. The APA is about 10,000 strong, and that is not counting biologists, anthropologists and all other stripes of scientists taking an interest in the question. So yes, Linda Gottfredson and about 50 researchers  (one-third of which are PF fundees) claim this is a consensus, but this consensus represents at best, what - 0.2% of American psychologists. Maybe if you want a statement which represents a real consensus, distilling one from the APA statement on the Bell Curve (the 1995 Neisser paper) would give it much more credibility.--Ramdrake 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see below. The APA report comes the same conclusions. However, the APA report wasn't written by 10k authors. It's the view of the ~10 authors who wrote the report, trying to present a consensus. The received many criticisms for their treatment of the cause of the BW gap, but that's actually outside of the scope of the Gottfredson sentences, which say the cause is specifically not resolved. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (1) Gottfredson is saying that the consensus of the available research points to these conclusions. The APA and WSJ statements agree as does the S&R survey. (2) No one thinks it's genetic only. The claim that the partly genetic view is really an all genetic view is fringe. Partly culture = partly genetic by definition. The reason it is phrased in terms of genetics is due to the history of this debate. It would take a substantial citation to demonstrate that the view of two major theories (<20% genetic versus 20-80% genetic) is wrong. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reworded the intro patagraph to read more cautiously. Gottfredson,while saying that research strongly supports (and that's a claim, not a fact) that all five evidentiary  prerequisites for the existence of the genetic hypothesis have been met, never actually comes out and say that a consensus exists. She says the body of evidence exists; she doesn't say others agree with her. Thus, to avoid an unwarranted generalization, I have reworded the intro to present the prerequisites as a well-supported claim rather than a fact, which is exactly what it is.--Ramdrake 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the 5 points and check the APA report. You'll see they are all there. Points 1-3 are listed as the consensus in the main article, etc. Points 4 is rather trivial as the IQ gap clearly makes a difference in educational outcomes. Point 5 was unchallenged circa 1995 when the APA report was written. Since then it has been suggested that it is still possible that the BW gap is on a factor that is merely highly correlated with g rather than g itself, but no suggestion that this is more likely the case. --Rikurzhen 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording of the Neisser (APA) report is dfferent, much more cautious. If you want to refe to the content of the Neisser report and paraphase from there rather than from Gottfredson's, go ahead. But presenting Gottfredson's claims, no matter how well supported, as facts backed by a general consensus is an unwarranted generalization, upon closer inspection.--Ramdrake 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JK's removal of large amounts of material 

message: Why is race and intelligence such a topic of intense focus for certain researchers? Why not height and intelligence? or Race and height?  I can see that this topic is significant from a historical perspective, I can also see why it fascinates the lay public. But, race is a slippery subject for science to grasp. It's not easily quantifiable. It's not rigid. So why is there so much research in to it?  What, moreover, is the scientific significance of the concept of race? I understand the concept of inheritance, but race? The definitions don't even remain static for a few decades.  I'm not questioning the utility of the research, I'm asking why they have chosen to study this topic. futurebird 10:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll humor you. (1) There aren't large and social important associations between height and intelligence. It's been studied, but found to be due to assortative mating. (2) Human height isn't as socially relevant to most westerners as human intelligence. (3) Each of the major researchers seem to have a unique research history that brought them to the study of race differences. Many go from studying IQ in general to race differences in particular, and most still remain active in areas outside of race differences. --W. D. Hamilton 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not height and intelligence?