Wikipedia

Talk:Dysgenics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Zero g (talk | contribs)
787 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
 
Line 1:
{{controversial}}
I added a blurb on the way the word seems to be used in modern biology. Though "dysgenics" does seem to still refer to genetic deterioration.
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=03:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=256256645
|currentstatus=FGAN
|topic=Biology and medicine
}}
{{Old prod
| declined = true
| nom = WhatIsAPoggers
| nomdate = 2020-10-09
| nomreason =
| 2nd =
| 2nddate = 2020-10-09
| 2ndreason =
| con = JavaHurricane
| condate = 2020-10-09
| conreason =
}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=6 January 2016 |result='''keep''' |page=Dysgenics |date2=9 October 2020 |result2='''Keep''' |page2=Dysgenics (2nd nomination)}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|genetics=yes|genetics-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=y|genetics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Statistics|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Human Genetic History|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = Talk:Dysgenics/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 7
| maxarchivesize = 70K
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Archives}}
 
== Further reading ==
I'm also looking for how dysgenics fit in with modern [[population genetics]]. - unsigned on 07:01, 2 August 2005 by [[User:Flammifer]]
 
I removed the "Further reading" section, which contained 1 item: a 1997 response paper making a minor point. I stated in my edit that this text is definitely [[WP:UNDUE]] in this context. The most immediate rationale for that is that the paper it responds to is not listed. But more to the point, we should be listing current, mainstream stuff in a "Further reading" section, if any remains that hasn't been cited in the article. This edit was promptly reverted by {{u|Roggenwolf}} (whom I now see is Biohistorian15, a frequent contributor to this topic area, operating under a new name). They are invited to discuss the matter here. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 19:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
==References==
There are several papers on this subject that I looked at a while back. Fisher, Medawar and A. W. F. Edwards spring to mind, but I may be wrong... I'll check when I have time. - ''[[User:Samsara|Samsara]]'' 14:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:I won't insist on the section then.
== Talk about IQ as nurture wrong for the article ==
:I don't see how pointing out my change of name is of any great help here.
:Other than that, please self-rv the other half of your blanket revert, @[[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]]. [[User:Roggenwolf|Roggenwolf]] ([[User talk:Roggenwolf|talk]]) 19:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for engaging. Unfortunately I don't agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics&diff=1259162199&oldid=1259161544 your assessment of what is most relevant] in the "See also" section either. Perhaps others will come along who do. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 19:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
 
==Questioning the article's POV==
Talk of IQ as a result of schooling has nothing to do with dysgenics. Though the degree to which that is a factor is debatable that debate is not suited to the article nor are assumptions outside the posited subject of the article. I believe there is too much talk about the human condition as a factor of nurture on an individual level; dysgenics would be a result of nurture effecting the outcome of our nature inherently, not the direct influence of nurture as an averse effect of an individual nature, but as an intrinsic quality passing on to each generation. I think there should be less talk about IQ in this article altogether and more in the lines of potential maladies along topics of [[Genetic drift]] & [[Population bottleneck]] in relation to the overall human genome. [[User:Nagelfar|Nagelfar]] 00:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 
As it stands, the article does not discern which varieties of dysgenics are commonly grouped together (i.e., the sort regarding '''health''' (accumulation of congenital disorders...), '''''temperament''''' (conscientiousness, psychopathology...), and '''intelligence'''.) It does not discern the accumulation of mutational load (e.g., per parental age effect) from directional selection (i.e., per differential fertility of some sort). It does also not discern historical notions of / proposed mechanisms for dysgenics (e.g., per Galton and Fisher) from modern ones (e.g., per Huxley and Muller).
I agree. The author makes several assumptions about IQ that are far from unequivocal, including the extent to which IQ tests measure it, and its inheritability. Moreover, the term suggests a weakening of biological fitness: enhanced intelligence is no match for a virus, bacteria or other environmental danger for which modern medicine does not allow natural selection to weed out the less fit. It seems that in fact those in "less modern" societies would be less vulnerable to dysgenics since they are more exposed to natural stresses. The article needs the contribution of an expert with greater control over the terms, phenomena and mechanisms. Kemet 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
Just about the only thing this article states as of late 2024, is that some mysterious process without historical background or conceptual value is not happening. [[User:ChopinAficionado|ChopinAficionado]] ([[User talk:ChopinAficionado|talk]]) 12:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:The better IQ tests measure intelligence with 80% accuracy. Intelligence is for 80% heritable. I'd suggest going to the appropriate main articles before dealing with fringe articles like this one if you have valid sources that have different findings. You might find one or two 'experts' there as well.
:At this time, <u>I will not pursue this matter any further personally</u>, but '''the POV template should absolutely stay up''' until someone at least attempts to address the underlying issues mentioned above.
:If, in the future, anyone is interested in which sources I would suggest to improve the article, they may go and mail {{Mail|ChopinAficionado}}.
:(Note that this is not a [[WP:SOAPBOX]] given my directly addressing the issues concerned.) Kind regards, [[User:ChopinAficionado|ChopinAficionado]] ([[User talk:ChopinAficionado|talk]])
::{{tq|some mysterious process without historical background or conceptual value is not happening}}. It has historical background. That's what the article is about. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
 
== The last body of text is inaccurate ==
:Also, I'm not entirely sure what the two of you are talking about. Could you word your exact problems with the article in a clearer manner? --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 13:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 
''"Despite these concerns, genetic studies have shown no evidence for dysgenic effects in human populations."'' This statement cites '''four studies.''' Let's take a look at each of them.
::This is an absurd statement. What's your independent assessment of intelligence? How do you know IQ tests measure it accurately? This whole page seems to be full of pseudo-scientific rubbish like the above. That's ''my'' problem with it. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
''https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-35321-6_9'' '''- This study fails to acknowledge the difference between [[Genotype|genotypic]] IQ (genetically loaded) and [[Phenotype|phenotypic]] IQ (culturally loaded).''' Dysgenics proponents acknowledge the very apparent increase in phenotypic IQ, whilst also noting that genotypic IQ has been steadily declining since the second half of the 20th century.
:::There's quite a bit in the [[IQ]] and [[race and intelligence]] articles this article borrows from. I'd suggest taking the ideological POV pushing to the rubbish of those articles. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 01:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
''https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6042097/'' '''- This study has been discredited, and contradicts the massive body of data on genotypic IQ.'''<u> A few serious caveats to consider on this study:</u>
== NPOV ==
''The study excluded people who did not have all native parents (no immigrants). So by design it was not going to find any dysgenic effect from immigration and they could not exclude such an effect.''
The current version of this article appears to me to be biased towards the point of view that these trends (a) exist and (b) are caused by the mechanisms outlined in the article, both of which are views which are enormously controversial. This article needs substantial editing to conform to Wikipedia's [[NPOV]] policy. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 13:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
They claim that there was no evidence that higher IQ males had lower fertility. For this claim they had some evidence (but see point 3 and 4). But they had no data on the relative fertility of women by IQ. They assumed there was no differential but they had no evidence for this and it seems to contradict other studies. If there was differential fertility by IQ for women, this invalidates the study.
The time period of the decline was quite short. It was truncated due to data not being collected after a certain point. This short period makes it harder to see any effect, so reports of no dysgenic effect may be shaky.
In the later years, many of the lower IQ males were not tested. The study had to try to correct for this and fill in the gaps. This correction accounted for 2/3 of the effect. Given the difficulties of making such corrections accurately (non-linearity etc) the result is more shaky than it seems.''"Despite these concerns, genetic studies have shown no evidence for dysgenic effects in human populations."''
'''Additionally, it contradicts much bigger, more accurate studies on the matter which have noted a gradual decrease in populations and their genetic potential for intelligence.''' -
''https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-10050-000''
''https://www.biblio.com/book/dysgenics-genetic-deterioration-modern-populations-human/d/1577001588?aid=frg&srsltid=AfmBOorWXDhSxzGwE-uv_P-MSBmqLKuNcvBZFziwfr_ZtJ5htbNAgRab9lM''
''https://ifstudies.org/blog/are-we-headed-towards-idiocracy-a-look-at-dysgenic-fertility''
''https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_467''
''https://www.proquest.com/docview/216810396''
''https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/tag/dysgenics/''
''https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289607000463''
''https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960300103X''
''https://www.ulsterinstitute.org/preview/DYSGENICS_chapter1.pdf''
''https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25131282/''
''https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1971-06332-001''
''https://rpubs.com/Daxide/374949''
''http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm''
''https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4002017/''
''http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/beaujean2008.pdf''
 
:Please find studies demonstrating that the trends (a) do not exist or (b) are not caused by the mechanisms presented in the article, and, if you are able to do this, put them in. Given the current presence of evidence in favor of the trends and their mechanisms, and further given the absence of mitigating evidence, the article as it stands is not POV and should not be labeled as controversial. [[User:Harkenbane|Harkenbane]] 00:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 
''https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4914190/ '''''This study does not discuss intelligence, nor does it discuss other trends which dysgenics proponents tend to talk about. It largely discusses partly phenotypic attributes, such as educational attainment, and health characteristics that were malleable within certain populations, and again, it contradicts the massive body of data on dysgenics. Meta-analyses alike (see no2).''' I imagine the person that wrote this body of text did not properly look into the study, nor did any research on the general (honest) consensus on the matter.
:It's been a week, and I'm reverting the NPOV edit. (If necessary, I can locate additional studies on the subject for inclusion in the article, but the ones I'm familiar with gave results similar to those already given in the article.) If anyone knows of studies which contradict the findings of a small but significant dysgenic trend with respect to IQ, please find them and add them to the article. [[User:Harkenbane|Harkenbane]] 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 
::It is notable that while dysgenics confers a disadvantage in microevolution, relaxation of natural selection (the supposed underlying cause) e.g. ''following'' a mass extinction seems to be strongly correlated with macroevolution, and indeed may be one of only two possible prerequisites for the latter (the other is evolution of a feature, e.g. ability to breathe air, that opens up completely novel ecological niches). So all the brouhaha is shockingly unimportant outside the field of (human) population genetics. Keeping your gene pool tidy will help squat in surviving the million years following a major bolide impact while being a freak actually helps. It is very questionable whether dysgenics is anything but a condition which only can occur in humans, ''if'' the pont where it becomes a problem will be reached at all in a natural environment. All the "maladaptations" that were earlier presented as result of "bad breeding" like the [[dodo]] and whatnot have turned out to be devoid of scientific merit. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] 10:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
:::The [[dodo]] is a pretty good example of dysgenics. While currently a mass extinction event is unlikely to wipe out mankind it might be a possibility if things get much worse in the distant future. Near sightedness might evolve to be much worse. Ceasarian sections might become necesary in the majority of births. Dependency on medical healthcare might become the norm as well as needing dental care. Take civilization away and you'd have a blind, teethless, feeble minded, sickly population that can hardly give birth, following the dodo in its lead. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 
''Neisser, Ulric (1998)'' '''- And finally, this study broadly discussed the Flynn effect, however does not acknowledge the difference between phenotypic and genotypic IQ (see no1).'''
== POV tag removed ==
 
After some re-editing, this page appears objective if not controvercial, based on the assumpion of good faith in the research. However, the citations and references seem a bit vague and I believe that tag is still relevant.
 
It seems that this article would beneift by a well supported paragraph or two documenting the critisisms of dysgenics.
 
<u>Given this, I'm going to replace the last body of text with a more appropriate paragraph, which recognizes the difference between phenotypic IQ and genotypic IQ, as it more accurately reflects the (honest) consensus on dysgenics, from a more neutral perspective.</u> [[User:BronzeInc|BronzeInc]] ([[User talk:BronzeInc|talk]]) 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 
:One of the sources you've cited in your edit is an article by [[J. Philippe Rushton]] which itself cites the work of [[Richard Lynn]], while another is by Lynn himself. Neither of these authors should be used as an uncritical, neutral source like this. [[User:Harryhenry1|Harryhenry1]] ([[User talk:Harryhenry1|talk]]) 11:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:Oddly enough there is no criticism that I know of, then again, media portrayal on the subject is non existent, so I asume nobody bothered to try to discredit something few people know anything about to being with. Possibly there could be a section about the media portrayal of the subject. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::Agreed, but I would go a bit farther. Most of these sources are terrible and useless for this discussion. Just to make it very clear: there is no consensus for these changes, so they should not be restored. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 04:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
 
::If citing hate sites such as [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Flynn_(academic)&diff=prev&oldid=1282428647 humanvarities.org] (run by [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_G._R._Fuerst John G. R. Fuerst]) wasn't already a red flag. Cited above (beyond Rushton and Lynn) are [[Emil Kirkegaard]], La Griffe du Lion (writer for [[VDARE]] and [[Steve Sailer]] associate), [[Ulster Institute]] among other kookery. The edits are clearly not made in any earnest sense. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
== Noncompliant ==
 
I added the noncompliant tag.
*Because of the association of this and similar ideas ([[The Bell Curve]]) with racism, extraordinary care must be given to securing the highest quality sources for any assertion that could be considered controversial. Since this is a scientific (or pseudoscientific) topic, I think that means that it should be based on peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journal articles. Please review [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].
*The first section "Dysgenic decline in intelligence" seems to suggest that educational achievement is correlated with intelligence; instead educational achievement is much more highly correlated with social and economic background.
*No citation is given for Vining's 1982 study. Was it discussed or criticized in the scientific literature subsequently?
*Dysgenics Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Richard Lynn, Praeger Publishers, 1996, is not a reliable source, in my opinion. No article for Praeger Publishers exists on Wikipedia. The Praeger Publishers main page does not suggest high editorial standards to me. [http://www.greenwood.com/praeger.aspx] Moreover, the title is not available on Amazon.com. [http://www.amazon.com/Dysgenics-Deterioration-Populations-Evolution-Intelligence/dp/0275949176] ISBN 0275949176
*The footnotes are in an odd format and are incomplete citations. Moreover, two of them are newpapers articles (not scientific journal articles) and the third is a blog.
*Schockley was a physicist and his ideas were discredited in the scientific literature, not merely "unfavorably portrayed in the press".
--[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 03:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:1. I'd love to see a peer-reviewed mainstream scientific source confirming that dysgenics is indeed associated with racism. There are also many scientific articles on Wikipedia that aren't based on (often non existent) peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.
:2. I know little about Vinings study. That the next study took 20 years to take place should give a good indication in the general scientific interest in this topic. I think you'll find more research about the [[Orchard Swallowtail Butterfly]].
:3. It's indeed not a reliable source, in your opinion that is, which you are entitled to. It's a valid source however, and given there are only a handful of sources on the subject to begin with it's ridiculous to suggest we remove the little we have.
:4. The beloved blog entry was one of the 'critical' sources I think.
:5. You mean his ideas were "discredited" in the scientific literature I think ;)
 
:All in all I think your argumentation is weak. I'm also not sure if it's your interest to actually improve this article, since you are not offering any supposedly better qualified sources as substitutes. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 09:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::We don't use biased sources or ones that fail [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] simply because there are no sources that are relaible and are within our policy of [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Regardless of the attempt to balance the article, blogs are definitely not reliable as sources. The article as it stands in unencyclopedic since it based primarily on unreliable sources.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Since you seem badly informed, the sources are in fact reliable despite Wsiegmund's claims to the contrary. The blog is not a source and listed under 'notes' which makes me wonder, did you actually bother to read the article before Wsiegmund summoned you? Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, I did read the article and find it to be based on a lot of POV research, much of which is not to be trusted. It doesn't matter where the blog is, blogs are worthless for inclusion in article space.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Then remove the link to the blog, not like the article falls or stands with it. Do you have any proof that the research is.. POV? Lynn's research is used in various articles and regarded as a respectable scientist, it's quite the accusation you make there really.
 
:::::If you desire a different article the proper route is to find sources to research that backs up your personal POV. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 12:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::Your suggestion is not consistent with my reading of the Wikipedia Policy in this regard ([[WP:V]]). "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If Richard Lynn is a respectable scientist, then he published in peer-reviewed journals. Why aren't his papers that are relevant cited? The fact that major university libraries such as Columbia, Ohio State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Washington, and Dartmouth College do not appear to list ''Dysgenics Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations'' in their catalogs, along with its unavailability on Amazon, suggests that many Wikipedia editors do not have access to the work and cannot verify the article content that is based on that source. The fact that Dysgenics is not a topic of significant scientific interest or research, which seems not to be disputed, is an important fact, I think. It should appear in the introduction to the article. --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 14:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::From the Lynn article: [[Richard Lynn]] was educated at Cambridge University, and has published at least 11 books, several book chapters, and over 60 peer-reviewed journal articles spanning five decades. Two of his recent books are written on dysgenics and eugenics, and are prominent works in those areas.
 
:::::::That there's little interest for the topic seems to be the case. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 16:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Just because one fellow wrote a book about Dysgenics, doesn't mean it has any science to it. If there has been zero fellow peers that are trained in such matters to support his findings, then all he has is a hypothesis and nothing more. Looking at the article on [[Richard Lynn]], it definitely appears his hypothesis on Dysgenics has some published critics as well. I would really like to see his DNA evidence that backs up his thoughts that the darker the skin of African Americans = lower IQ. No doubt, the slave trade brought Africans to North America from different areas of Africa, and from what I learned when working on my degree is that there are at least 120 different "groups" of sub-saharan Africans, some which had been genetically isolated from each other for many thousands of years, or, in excess of 100 generations even. What I'm getting at is since this person is the only one of any repute who has written a book on the matter, it needs to be made clear that this is not a science, but a hypothesis...if even that.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::Dysgenics is a well defined scientific concept backed up by all the studies on evolution, mutation and heritability. The only real criticism comes from mainstream religions (are you a creationist by chance?) who tend to target the evolution theory, and reductionists who state that negative and positive traits do not exist.
 
:::::::::Dysgenics as a concept also needs no book to define it, given it's described in most dictionaries. What's left in that case are studies measuring dysgenic decline, which are listed in this article. Whether that be intelligence or the ever increasing number of near sighted people. It's odd that few people bother to research this area, but I don't think that discredits those who do. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 08:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::I have been searching around for anything substantive that supports Lynn's findings and I see none, therefore, there is no science here, only his hypothesis. When other researchers who have knowledge in this field also chime in either in agreement or disagreement, and a resultant finding of fact occurs, then there might be credence to his work or a dismissal of it. Until then, it's important that we accurately label the information here as being what it is, and that is merely a hypothesis. No, I'm not a creationist.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::What exactly do you find problematic? That allele frequencies change, that mutations occur, or that traits can be classified as positive / negative? Given that the concept of dysgenics borrows most or all of its scientific foundation from evolutionary theories your suggested changes are controversial because it implies that humans somehow don't abide to evolutionary changes?
 
:::::::::::You also seem to misunderstand the nature of the research. Statistical research is not a hypothesis, it's an observation. Are you implying Lynn pulled the results of the study out of thin air? And if the findings are so controversial why aren't there any studies disproving the findings by showing results that proof differently? All in all the findings of these studies are worth mentioning, but I guess a '''Criticism''' section could be added noting that due to the lack of broad scientific research in this area the results might not be representative, and other objections you may find.
 
:::::::::::While this would possibly be OR if you can't find valid sources making these claims I won't object if it's done fairly, for the sake of NPOV. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 10:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::A discussion related to this one occurred recently at [[Talk:Eugenics]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEugenics&diff=82853953&oldid=82852537] --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::::That discussion is even worse than this one, when it comes to consensus. Any suggestions what to do with the tags?
:::::::::::::The topic being unencyclopedic doesn't stand and I'm going to remove it soon.
:::::::::::::The request for an expert doesn't stand cause we've established that there's a neglectable amount of research, which means there are even fewer experts.
:::::::::::::I think we've also established that the few main sources used are valid.
 
:::::::::::::I'd say I remove the link to the blog, remove the tags, and perhaps open up a new topic on how to actually improve the article if there's any interest. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
None of the sources listed under "Notes" mention "dysgenics", or even posit a dysgenic theory. Under "References", Shockley is not a credible source. Do Teasdale and Owen mention "dygenics" by name? Other than Lynn, I don't see much else that we can use as a reliable expert. If there are no verifiable, reliable sources then we should cut this article down to what we can verify. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:1. http://www.amazon.com/Shockley-Eugenics-Race-Application-Problems/dp/1878465031 looks like a valid source to me, besides that the book isn't by Shockley himself, besides, if he did write books on the subject it'd likely be credible.
:2. The 3 links in the notes section can be removed if there's no objection.
:3. According to google Teasdale and Owen are linked to dysgenics, didn't look into the actual pages (yet) though.
:4. So far there's nothing to cut back. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::''Dysgenics Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations'' by Richard Lynn does not satisfy [[WP:V]], to wit, "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Since this book is not available from most libraries, even from major university libraries, it fails this criterion. I think Wikipedia policy requires that content based on this source be removed, unless an alternative source that is available to readers can be found. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Here is the abstract of the Teasdale & Owen paper: [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16995201] It apparently concludes that a lowering of scores in intelligence tests is due to less education, not dygenics. That was properly summarized here"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics&diff=45912995&oldid=44773066]. While the citation may be relevant to the [[Flynn Effect]], I don't see its relevance here. The theory that the Flynn Effect masks dysgenics needs a source. As for the Shockly book, he's listed as the co-author on Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/Shockley-Eugenics-Race-Application-Problems/dp/1878465031]. So far as I am aware, he had no credentials in the field of intelligence. Does anyone here even have a copy? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 05:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
== Merge tagged ==
Since [[Richard Lynn]] is about the only person who has written about this subject, and it is not a recognized as a science, in keeping with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight undue weight clause] of [[WP:NPOV]], I see no reason that the gist of this can't be covered in the article about the major author on the subject.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
Given that the term has been used since the early 20th century this is a very bad idea, besides, Lynn isn't the only one who wrote on the subject. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 17:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:Also, given the problems recently encountered at [[J. Philippe Rushton]], I'd say this is a very bad idea indeed. To some, what Lynn does *is* recognized science, and this where all the trouble will start.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::I know that this is not science. The entire dysgenics argument is preposterous due to the unreliability of all data. It's junk science and just because someone may have done good work in one area of research, doesn't mean that this exempts them from being found negligent in this one. The only place this article deserves to be is in the Richard Lynn article, since he is the only one who is accredited as doing any recent examination on the issue. I'll take care of the merge here shortly.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Please heed the consensus here and at [[Richard Lynn]] which goes against the merge. In all likelihood, if you go ahead with the merge, it will be reverted. "Because it's a bad article" is not a reason to compound a biography with the problems in this article.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:::If you feel this article is that bad, just nominate it for [[WP:AfD|deletion]].--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 
== Some Links ==
 
I'll be copying some links here that might be of interest. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 
* http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/LynnPINC.htm - Review of Richard LYNN, 1996, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations.
 
== Relevance? ==
 
I removed this line:
*''During [[World War II]] the [[United States]] had difficulty training low-IQ military recruits; this led Congress to ban enlistment by those from the lowest 10 percent (an IQ below 80) of the population. [http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html]''
Because it doesn't not have anything to do with dysgenics. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:It's relevant to historic claims that world wars are dysgenic. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::Says who? It isn't in Gottfredson. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::David Starr Jordan wrote about it, it adds to the hypothesis. Your perseverance to remove it does as well I guess. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Jordan wrote that World War II was a dysgenic force? Then why are we using Gottfredson as the source? If Jordan didn't write about it then we're engaged in original research. I'm not sure what you meant by your last remark. Please explain. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::My mistake, I thought it was you who deleted that section at first because it was unsourced. Gottfredson didn't mention it, however, on the effect of world wars it was noted that the fit fought and died at the front while the disabled stayed at home. So that's where the quote fits as an example of the disabled / challenged staying at home. If that particular instance is actually dysgenic or not isn't a concern until someone actually claims it is.
:::::I'm curious though, given you don't find the article relevant as a whole, are some parts more relevant than others? --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::I don't know which article you're talking about. If Gottfredson is not the source for the association of dysgenics with WWII then we need to find a source that does. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 
*During [[World War II]] the [[United States]] had difficulty training low-IQ military recruits, leading Congress to ban enlistment by those from the lowest 10 percent (an IQ below 80) of the population. [http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html] This extended Jordan's believes to those of low intelligence being excluded from warfare.
 
According to whom does this extend Jordan's beliefs? This fact seems to be put in to try to prove the subject of this article, not to report what reliable sources have said about it. As evidence it is inconclusive, even given the theory of dysgenics, as we don't know what proportion of men survived and reproduced from the various intelligence ranges, or whether they were otherwise fit to be good fathers. In any case, it's original research in this context and dos not belong in this article. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 01:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:No conclusions are drawn, this addition is of the same nature as the recent addition hinting at Shockley being a racist. Besides, the sourced statement falls within the scope of the article.
 
:I once again strongly suggest finding sources that indicate that 1) a study found no dysgenic trends. 2) That the influence of dysgenic trends is neglectable and hence nothing to worry about. 3) Researchs that indicates that traits like health and intelligence aren't heritable. 4) Historical dysgenic research that has been proven to be biased. 5) Sources proving modern research is biased. 6) Whatever else you can think of that falls within the scope of the article.
 
:The only problem with the text is that '''you''' don't like what it says. If you tried, instead of deleting stuff you don't like, to actually do some research and look into expanding the article (even if it only supports your particular pov) you might actually make a useful contribution. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 
== Dysgnenics is nonsense ==
The term is supported only by persons with a completely erroneous misunderstanding of IQ testing as a means to establish intelligence and by racist misunderstadings about what constitites a race. "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund." SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1995 Volume 272[http://www.du.edu/~psherry/bellcrv.html]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:Using your own reasoning this cannot be included because there is no mention of dysgenics.
 
:The same goes for the statement that "It is not a topic of significant scientific research" which lacks a source as well. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 10:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::That "it is not a topic of significant scientific research" is amply demonstrated by the lack of sources from the scientific peer-reviewed literature. If they exist, please add them to the article. As written, the main source for the article is criticized in the harshest possible terms in the Scientific American quotation. Do you think that a Wikipedia article should be based on such a source? [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 16:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::A book review by [[Chris Brand]] has been added as a reference.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dysgenics&diff=next&oldid=86956916] Brand is notable for being fired by Edinburgh University in 1997 for conduct that had allegedly "brought the university into disrepute." According to the web link, a personal web site not meeting the minimal standards of [[WP:V]], the book review was first published in the Internet magazine, PINC (Politically Incorrect).[http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/dec98/books/r_lynn.html] The editorial policy of PINC is, in part, "Material that is published here is published because the editors consider it interesting and worthy of debate, not because they believe it to be "correct" or "virtuous".[http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/board.html] --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 
Anyone who has doubts about this being an area that deserves coverage should see the [[WP:NPOV#undue weight|undue weight]] clause of our neutral point of view policy...clearly, "Dysgenics" is not a science since it is not embraced except from some fringe elements and, well, bigots, to be frank. I'll quote the undue weight clause that is appropriate in this situation: ''"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."''--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:While being highly controversial, I believe "dysgenics" does exist at least as a concept entertained in some scientiic circles, as Google Scholar finds at least 150 references to it: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dysgenics&hl=en&lr=]. After all, the book [[Race, Evolution and Behavior]] has itw own WP article, while at the same time beign extremely controversial and decried. I don't think we can censor a word out of Wikipedia just because we don't like its connotations. Phrenology is definitely not a science, but it has its own article, and some other articles actually link to it. So, what ''is'' the problem?--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
::The problem is with the misuse of the term in related articles. It never appeares in the scientific literature when discussing the topic of human extinction or regressive genetic situations aside from when folks like Richard Lynn and Chris Brand try to use it as their basis of IQ=race mythology. They know nothing of genetics and the differences between whites and blacks "involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::This was added to the intro: ''The term has not been accepted by biologists as a descriptive term to describe a regressive genetic tendency.'' If one just follows this [http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/106/1/85 link] or that [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=dysgenic+-muscle one], one will see that this statement is patently false. Even though dysgenicity is strictly theoretical in humans, it is a valid concept, even thouhg it also has been misused by racists. So, I'll be removing the sentence.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Then stop re-adding links back to this article in those articles that deal with human evolution...it is not germane to those articles. The persons currently trying to apply this term to a race=IQ basis only show their lack of understanding...as I said, the entire genetic difference in skin pigmentation and probably most other differences that are externalized, and related biological changes in the DNA from whites and blacks is only 1 DNA letter out of 3.1 billion, as linked above. Lynn and Brand must have zero knowledge of economic/availablity/quality level issues of educational opportunities among different regions/demographics in the U.S. and elsewhere. Besides, turning this article into one which in anyway embraces Lynn's and others stereotyping of traditional racist ideology is not the direction this article should be going..that is if I don't nominate it for deletion for it's inability to meet the undue weight clause of NPOV.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::The only external link I re-added treated dysgenics as a purely hypothetical process in humans, which is correct. Apart from that, I just reinstated internal links to the dysgenics article so that the word could be understood. This is much better than eradicating the word because its use in human genetics is too often associated with racism. If you want something to do to really help the anti-racist viewpoint, may I ask you take a look at the [[Race and intelligence]] suite of articles? We could really use some help on NPOV there.--[[User:Ramdrake|Ramdrake]] 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::No thanks...all we need to do is keep this term out of the human evolution articles...it is not one with any basis in fact and aside from biased research, it does not have anything to do with human evolution.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Do you have any proof that the research is biased, or is this some kind of personal conspiracy theory of yours? --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Biased research is usually done by biased researchers and as I continue to work on this article, maybe you'll learn something about the facts of the case here.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 
The [[Eugenics|Theory of Eugenics]] of which this appears to be a subset was disproved a long time ago. it is a great example of psuedo science and it is a great example of what happens when people fall for psuedo science. But the belief that the gene pool is weakening is simply unsupported. If anything, recent (i.e. since jet travel was invented) racial mixing is strenghtening the gene pool by recombining isolated genes and increasing variation. Biologists mix breeds to enhance the hardiness of endangered species such as the [[Mexican Gray Wolf]] to enhance it's chance of survival. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:neither [[hybrid vigor]] nor [[outbreeding depression]] can be predicted a priori. --[[User:Rikurzhen|Rikurzhen]] 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::Yes, that is true. I believe the MGW case is more of a suppression of inbreeding which is more predictable. You certainly couldn't extrapolate the effects of a very small gene pool like the MGW to the large pool of human beings. But it's also why the dysgenic theory is so preposterous. I am not a biologist but I have seen one on TV. :) [[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 
check chapter 12 of ''Narrow Roads in Gene Land'' for [[W.D. Hamilton]]'s theories about the dysgenic effects of modern medicine. --[[User:Rikurzhen|Rikurzhen]] 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 
== Historical usage? ==
I believe this was a very common belief in the early part of the century. Much like [[Global Warming]] is a common belief now. In fact, Michael Crichton cites the erroneous belief in his book [[State of Fear]] basically to show that popular belief science like Global Warming is often devoid of sound scientific reasoning and repeats the hysteria of the time. It is amazing the people who believed it. I have never heard this term but it sounds like proponents of Eugenics would need to believe in 'dysgenics'. Is this part of the Theory of Eugenics/ See [http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html this]. The theory is psuedo-science at best.--[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:I think you have me confused...are you comparing the Dysgenics arguments of the 1930's to the current one today about global warming? I mean, that global warming is some kind of fallacy as well?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yup, global warming is a total pseudo-science, we ought to remove the term from every scientific Wikipedia page sometime. Once the Northpole has melted we could always consider some ''minor'' changes to our pov.
 
::Dysgenics was never disproven though, instead there was some massive hysteria following WWII that made these concepts highly controversial and led to the global adoption of [[humanistic]] thought, from which viewpoint dysgenics is irrelevant, though the easily misguided masses must at all cost be protected from these evil believes. --[[User:Zero g|Zero g]] 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dysgenics"