Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 29

message: you'll need to point out what specifically is being disputed in the tagged sections. tags aren't useful unless backed up by material from the talk page. i believe my objections to the PF claim (and especially the presentation of the NAACP office quotation) in the "accusations of bias" section are clearly spelled out in a section above. --Rikurzhen 08:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, JereKrischel, WP:POINT. Improving the factual accuracy is an admirable enterprise. Throwing tags around isn't. Arbor 09:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, maybe the foofewopinions tag is a bit overlooked. I see a lot of use and abuse of disputed, which claims factual inaccuracy, which (given the super-careful formulations used in this article) often comes off as ludicrous. What many of the editors here seems to be critical of is a perceived skewedness in reporting. Consider using toofewopinions, if that's what you mean—we might become more productive! Here is how it looks. Arbor 13:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Arbor, that looks like it may be useful in a place or two. :)--Ramdrake 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to make clearer the disputed facts in my comments, and I'll follow up on details as time permits - I'm not trying to throw them around carelessly, but I believe Rikurzhen served as a good example, and wanted to follow his lead in clearly identifying the areas which are factually disputed (primarly because opinion is presented as fact, both in and out of references).  I'll add more later, please see my check-in comments for my initial basis and concerns. --JereKrischel 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tags 

message: moved from article:
Another important issue regarding the explanations of measured IQ differences is the concept of "labeling bias", described by Jencks and Phillips (1998).   They insist that there exists a labelling bias in the tests, stating that most psychologists agree that IQ tests measure developed ability rather than innate ability—although the tests supposedly measure innate ability.Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap: An introduction. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.),The black-white test score gap(pp. 1-51). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. ". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in the black-white gap."  Their assertion is that non-cultural environmental factors cause gaps measured by the tests, rather than any possible innate difference based on genetics, and to use these tests as a measure of innate difference is misleading and improper.PBS Jencks Interview "If we change the names of the tests, they still measure the same thing but it wouldn't convey this idea that somehow you've gotten the potential of somebody when you measured their IQ. And I think that creates a big bias, because the people who do badly on the tests are labeled as people with low potential in many people's minds and they sometimes even believe that about themselves.
----
someone, i hope the author of the site, is very confused. i know of no psychometric basis for ascribing a distinction to developed versus learned ability. the nearest psychometric analogy is to fluid and crystallized g, which is itself controversial. if so, that's not a kind of "test bias" in the sense that applies to BW differences, but to the design of tests in general. --Rikurzhen 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but if by "innate" they mean hereditary, then there's something terribly wrong in this description. whether a person's abilities arose from genetic or envionrmental sources can't be ascertained on an individual level. --Rikurzhen 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is quite clear from Jencks and Phillips - the U.S. BW gap may not have content bias, or methodology bias, but labeling bias is critical to the pro-hereditarian POV.  If you cannot assert that once you get rid of content bias and methodology bias, there is nothing left but genetics, their position is untenable.  And considering that on the subject of heridiability, they state, ". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in the black-white gap." (p. 20), it seems that there is a strong admonition against the belief that once content and methodology are controlled for, there is nothing but genetics left over.  In any case, it is a distortion to assert that because people have not found cultural bias in tests that there is no bias whatsoever there. --JereKrischel 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly there are pro-hereditarians who assert that once cultural and other bias is taken into account, the only thing left is genetics.  Again, I think you're not addressing test bias in a specific enough fashion - Flynn may very well believe there is no cultural bias, or methodlological bias, but may understand that there is a labelling bias.  Take note of the mention of labelling bias, and how that in the case of the BW gap, asserting that the results are from innate differences is not the mainstream POV - Jencks and Phillips say that most psychologists agree that IQ tests measure developed ability rather than innate ability—although the tests supposedly measure innate ability.  There very well may be a problem with the tests' ability to measure innate ability, rather than developed ability.  This kind of problem is critical to the discussion of R&I, don't you think? --JereKrischel 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are numerous other sources discussing Jencks' "labeling bias" on google scholar.  I only put it as "related" to cultural-bias due to the original section heading, which has now been changed to "Explanations".  I've removed the note regarding its relation to cultural bias - hopefully that is sufficient. --JereKrischel 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked through them and they appear to be book reviews. The "labeling bias" argument appears to be a kind of argument for "culture only", and so would go in that section. However, there are myriad individual arguments for the "culture only" position. We do not have the space in a summary style subsection to enumerate them. What's needed is evidence that "labeling bias" is considered important by anyone other than Jencks. --Rikurzhen 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'labeling bias' is particularly distinct from 'culture only', and I apologize for conflating the two earlier by writing they had a relationship - I was trying to fit it into the section heading, and the more appropriate move was to change the heading.  It certainly seems that Jencks is well cited by others, so I would say we've gotten our secondary sources there.  I've put back the section, and modified the prior section to be more specific. --JereKrischel 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you point out which papers you think establish the importance of "labeling bias". As per my comments above, my reading of the literature finds no adoption of the concept. And of course, textbooks are exactly the kind of criteria we need to establish what is important and what is not. "Labeling bias" obviously didn't make it into the APA and WSJ reports as the term was invented many years later, so all we are left with is text books, etc. --Rikurzhen 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jencks and Phillips 

message: Ramdrake, above in #2 you posted this:
:"If the purpose of this article is to show that there are IQ differences between races and that there may be some genetic component..."
You rightly go on to criticize the brain size argument but there are even more fundamental problems. That sentence fragment is a false tautology, describing the issue incompletely as "IQ differences between races" already errantly presupposes there is a "genetic component" because the words "races" and "genetic" are related and subconsciously implicate each other. A neutral encyclopedia has to describe and frame each issue using words that can't possibly induce a jumping to conclusion. Given that the words "races" and "genetic" have related meaning in this context your sentence is basically saying "If the purpose of this article is to show X then X may be a component of X" which seems like infinitely confusing and circular doublespeak.
Additionally, the word "may" is ambiguous as it also means "give permission" which would be incorrect in this context, "might" is much better. Also, the word "show" seems needlessly conclusive, wouldn't it be better to say "If the purpose of this article is to report on X..."? Awareness of Language 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular Illogic/False Tautology