Wikipedia

Talk:Race and intelligence

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ultramarine (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 7 August 2005 (→Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 20 years ago by Ultramarine in topic Advertising in article
Learn more about this page

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.



Crux of NPOV issue

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've been trying to figure out what sorts of edits it would take to end the NPOV dispute. Here is a key phrase from Jokestress that I believe crystallizes the issue:

This research is based on two sets of disputed terminologies, so any attempt to separate the research from the dispute is POV-pushing.

My response is, roughly:

These minority positions are acknowledged at length. Efforts to entangle such positions with consensus research constitute POV-pushing.

That said, I'm willing to entertain Jokestresses' mandate. What's not clear to me are its operational consequences. Must we simply have a phrase at the beginning of each page that says, "Some researchers maintain that neither race nor intelligence can be scientifically defined or studied, making all related research invalid (see <link to detailed discussion of this POV>)"? I could get comfortable with that. --DAD T 00:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think Rikurzhen's idea, above, is the right approach. If we've really identified the misapprehensions that can spark unnecessary controversy and head them off, then we will do readers a favor and also reduce attacks here on positions that aren't actually held. P0M 03:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion above will only help after we've solved this particular issue. As I see it, the question is how do we achieve an NPOV presentation of this issue? My greatest concern is that (1) the research results (i.e. the scientific majority view) should not be entangled (good word) with the views of outside critics (i.e. the minority view) to the extent that they obfuscate the description of the main views. My other concerns are that (2) we not commit the sin of trying to give equal validity to the many single-shot criticisms of this research in the main article where the major research results have been summarized down to 6 paragraphs; my solution is to use summary style w/ the race and intelligence controversy article. Another concern (3) is that we need to be able to make some controversial assumptions in the sub-articles that detail research results w/ brief, unobtrusive pointer to race and intelligence controversy (as described below). --Rikurzhen 16:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I know it must seem sometimes that I am on the side of entangling or obfuscating, but actually I think the content and intent of the article is not problematical. The problem is how to write accurately for a non-specialist readership and not get them mixed up in the process. The essential thing is not to fail to make clear to those readers the things that everybody in the field takes for granted, having been exposed to them. Another thing that can be very helpful is to make clear the distinction between the data and the interpretations of the data. Then the job is to describe the work done by researchers who are trying to dope out the connections between intelligence test results and memberships in demographic groups. It's fair to point out that this group or that group has criticisms, but it seems to me that if there is an alternative take on the same data, or an alternative assemblage of data that competes somehow with this assemblage of data, then that would require a different article. P0M 19:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jokestress, this is where we need to focus our discussion. --Rikurzhen 23:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is on the right track, though I liked where P0M was going earlier with the 5 points. What I feel is missing is the view from within the scientific community that this sort of research is scientifically misconceived and politically suspect. Further, if a poll of scholars (Snyderman) found that 55% did not opine that Black-White difference in I.Q. is a product of both genetic and environmental variation, that is a significant dispute. The thing that's really missing is insufficient data and not qualified. Many feel the data presented are tendentious at best, considering the conclusions being inferred. Jokestress 17:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think you're missing the point of the experts' dispute. The data is not in dispute, nor is the conclusion that average IQ differences exist between races. (So, for example, the data in figure 1 is uncontroversial among experts). What's disputed is whether the cause is partly-genetic or entirely not-genetic. This dispute is not a reflection of doubt about the basic IQ data, but rather a very understandable problem of not having enough direct (behavioral genetics) data to convince everyone one way or the other. (Also note the survey was performed in 1984, so the level of uncertainty may have diminished in the last 20 years). --Rikurzhen 17:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rikurzhen: relevant material copied from NPOV policy -- discuss above

about minority views:

  • represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority ... view as the minority view
  • [minority views] should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
  • Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.

making necessary assumptions:

What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.

Some specific problems with sentences.

Latest comment: 20 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

(1)

The sentence at the end of the second or third paragraph above the TOC says,

However, differences in average IQs among groups have been examined extensively.

It strikes me as being a non sequiter. Would it change your meaning to swap "Nevertheless" for "However"? P0M 04:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nevertheless is fine. --Rikurzhen 16:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

(2)

The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect a genetic component, such as genes linked to neuron proliferation, brain size, and brain metabolism, that varies with ancestral background.

How do we say things so that it is clear that the differences in the intelligences of individuals and the differences in the intelligences of [races] are hypothesized to be dependent on genetic heritages both in regard to genetic instructions for brain growth and structure, etc., and also in regard to genetically determined requirements for nurture? P0M 04:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe "reflect" really was intended to mean "are determined by"? Is the idea that there is a set apparatus for processing information that is rolled out by the body in conjunction with the blueprint in our DNA regardless of any environmental impacts (as long as the organism isn't killed)? P0M 05:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I could be written The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences are also partly genetic... --Rikurzhen 16:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I am seeing with that sentence is not solved by your emendation. I went back and tried swapping out the other language, but it didn't help. The problem that I see is that the text reifies or hypostatizes (i.e., makes an abstraction into a concrete entity) intelligence. That probably wasn't anybody's intention. At least according to my understanding of all our discussions, we all realize that genetic instructions do not simply crank out a "computer" with all its programming in ROM which the individual is stuck with for an entire lifetime. The previous paragraph mentions "genetic components," so the reader is apt to read conditionals backwards and say that if different [races] have different measured [intelligences] then the genotypes for different [races] determine their various levels of [intelligence]. That conclusion goes far beyond the evidence since nobody knows yet whether (as I think DAD pointed out) one [race] might get the same diet as another [race] but fail to get nutritional support for full genotype expression in the area of [intelligence] because genotype factors made the organism require higher quantitites of some nutrient to support brain development, and since epigenetic "programming on the fly" of the organism might greatly inhibit brain development if, e.g., most individuals of one [race] were subjected to a heavy diet of stress. (Sharing a physical environment may make it seem that the environmental conditions for all humans in that environment are the same, every breathes the same air, drinks the same water, watches the same TV, etc. So why are these green kids growing up great and those pink kinds growing up putrid?)

Would the following rewording be acceptable.

The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect inherited genetic components that may vary across races both in terms of the nutritional requirements of the organism (in the broadest sense) and also in terms of the brain structures that would be produced under optimal conditions.

(Sorry if my responses to earlier suggested changes are slow. I'm on a few deadlines here and will get to math problems, etc. when I work back down to that part of the article -- if no kind soul has fixed them before I get there, that is. :-) ) P0M 18:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I get it. I didn't like the examples at first, but the editor who put them there is right, I think, that providing an example of what a genetic cause is helpful for the reader. I changed the sentence to make the fact that it is a hypothetical example clearer. --Rikurzhen 19:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that will avoid the problem. The problem is not just that it is hypothetical and might be assumed to be a real connection. The problem is that it suggests that the quality of genetic instructions for, e.g., "neuron proliferation, brain size, and brain metabolism" are (or would be if the hypothesis about their existence is correct) possible to be deduced from the outcomes. That in turn suggests that if pink people get putrid results on IQ tests then pink people are genetically determined to be inferior. But "If you have a poor genotype then you will get a poor phenotype" is not at all the same as "If you have a poor phenotype then you must have a poor genotype." People get their "...if and only if...s" confused with their "if... then...s" all of the time. The people who were reported in the article on epigenesis suggested that 50% of phenotypical characteristics may be accounted for by epigenetic changes. We know that simple malnutrition can permanently stunt growth. Lots of other inhibitory factors have been hypothesized. So what is wrong with the way I phrased the matter above? P0M 21:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

No particular genes have yet been convincingly linked to variation in IQ (there are reports of linkage to chromosomal regions that include very many genes). However, there are measured biological differences (e.g., brain size, glucose metabolism, nerve condition measurements, etc.) which have been associated with differences in IQ. These biological difference have been used to do candidate genetic screens for IQ variation -- these candidates are "brain development genes", so to say. There's nothing logically wrong with any hypothesis, including a nutritional sensitivity one, but the only kind of genes that -- I know of -- that have been actually hypothesized by researchers as possible candidates are those involved in brain development. So with the idea of creating a hypothetical example of how genes could affect group differences, brain development genes are the safest example. --Rikurzhen 21:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Brain growth and structure, etc., should make the blue whale the most intelligent creature on Earth... And, maybe they are ?... Ericd 21:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Animal intelligence? Birds! They're so much better than mammals in a lot of ways. --Rikurzhen 22:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I like where you guys are going with this above. I keep re-reading the first paragraph. I just made a couple of changes because it isn't about all group differences (say sex or age), but about racial and ethic group differences. The article is also mostly about IQ, so I think we need to clarify especially IQ when mentioning intelligence. I also added "purported" which may be a little strong/POV. Jokestress 23:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I removed the 'purported.' The differences in IQ are established and accepted. The meaning of those differences and their causes are what is debated.--Nectarflowed T 00:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The issue is that IQ does not necessarily equal intelligence (even though this article takes that as an assumption). I agree that "puported" is not quite right, though. Need to think on it. Jokestress 01:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
For the sake of a 3 paragraph abstract, the distinction between intelligence and IQ can be permitted to remain a little blury. That kind of detail should go in the background section, which follows immediately afterwards, and if possible should rely on the intelligence (trait) and IQ articles to do the bulk of the explanation of why they are not identical. --Rikurzhen 01:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
That's a good fix to the intelligence assumption. I also propose that we link the word "controversial" in the summary to the "controversy" page (whatever it ends up being called). The summary should get readers to the information they need if clarification is necessary. I'd like to figure out a way to do something similar to the first assumption. As I mentioned before, self-identified race isn't really the issue, and you guys are dancing around some great ways to acknowledge the crux of the controversy (heritability). The first half of P0M's suggestion is dead-on, but I wonder if there's a simpler (more blurry) way to explain the second half (in italics):

The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect inherited genetic components that may vary across races both in terms of the nutritional requirements of the organism (in the broadest sense) and also in terms of the brain structures that would be produced under optimal conditions.

Maybe something about potentialities or expression. The environmental questions are important, but the real nucleus of this debate is whether any heritable elements that affect intelligence vary by race or ethnicity. Jokestress 03:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The causes of the IQ gap are the primary focus of the scholarly debate, so it can't be an assumption of the research. --Rikurzhen 03:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Then maybe the article should be called "race and IQ." I think a general reader needs to understand the difference between what an IQ gap and an intelligence gap might be. Jokestress 04:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
But the gaps are in many other things besides IQ, such as SAT scores, school achievement, reaction time, brain to body mass ratio, brain structure, etc. Dd2 04:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
[edit conflict; Dd2 is right] Most critics of IQ claim that it doesn't fully measure intelligence. However, this concern is irrelevant for our current discussion because an IQ difference implies an intelligence difference. (For example, as a difference in leg-length implies a difference in height.) But the data goes beyond "IQ" tests, so IQ should not be substituted for intelligence. "Cognitive ability" is probably the preferable term from a technical stance, but article renaming for the sake of technical clarity is a slippery slope that eventually leads to rediculous titles that no one but an expert could interpret (titles have been discussed several times before and always we arrive at this conconlusion). --Rikurzhen 04:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
So, you can see how this is the kind of distinction that isn't necessary in the article abstract, but can be mentioned in the background and described fully in the intelligence (trait) article. --Rikurzhen 06:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The background section currently says: Cognitive ability (i.e., intelligence) is most commonly measured using IQ tests. These tests are often geared to measure the psychometric variable g, and other tests that measure g, such as the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, also serve as measures of cognitive ability. All such tests are often called "intelligence tests," though the term "intelligence" is controversial. Some critics, such as Sternberg and Gardern, believe that there are important aspects of intelligence not measured by IQ tests. In this article, "IQ test" denotes any test of cognitive ability. Some critics question the validity of all IQ testing or claim that there are aspects of intelligence not reflected in IQ tests. See the articles Intelligence, IQ, and general intelligence factor for further discussion of the validity of these tests.
What we still need to resolve is the NPOV discussion in the section above. --Rikurzhen 04:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

(3)

Puzzling:

While the existence of average IQ test score differences has been a matter of accepted fact for decades, during the 1960s and 1970s a great deal of controversy existed among scholars over the question of whether these score differences reflected real differences in cognitive ability.

Does this mean that average of one group is different than the average of another group? From year to year? Or what? I suppose the reader can guess what the intended meaning is, but avoiding such guesses is desirable because of what can happen when the reader guesses wrong. P0M 07:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply


"During the 1960s and 1970s, scholars debated the question of whether average racial group differences in IQ (which were firmly established by that time) reflected real differences in cognitive ability." Does that clear it up? --Rikurzhen 08:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Reification of intelligence, again

Latest comment: 20 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, once again I'm at the wrong computer. Last time there were no extra spaces, but I still don't know what is going on.

I think the discussion has drifted from what I see as a much bigger problem than the one that Rikurzhen is trying to fix. The current language still leads the reader to reify intelligence:

Hypothetically, a genetic cause could include genes linked to neuron structure or function, brain size, or brain metabolism, that vary with ancestral background.

Even though it is phrased in terms of a hypothesis, the reader can understand the hypothesis to be that genes determine "neuron structure of function, brain size, or brain metabolism." If you have purple genes you will have a poor brain, and we know that because purple people have poor intelligence. I doubt that such a formulation reflects current thought.

How about:

Hypothetically, a genetic contribution to intelligence could include genes linked to neuron structure or function, brain size, or brain metabolism, that vary with ancestral background.

That formulation would leave open the possibility that green people are greater in intelligence than others because their genotypes make them able to get by on smaller amounts of dietary or environmental element X. It doesn't create the implication that if pink people have always averaged an IQ of 90 in every study ever made then they will necessarily continue to score that way regardless of environmental changes that may occur in the future. P0M 05:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

That suggestion sounds fine to me, but probably because I don't quite see how it differs from the previous version. Maybe someone else sees something I'm missing? --Rikurzhen 05:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have a number of issues with the article, but I think I may start here. The genetic thinking here is wooly at best. Of course any genetic influance will vary with ancestral background. Mutations apart (and the rate is so low as to be discounted on this sort of statistical inference), saying that genes vary by ancestry is tautological as that is exactly where they come from. What is being postulated is that the genes that may or may not control these aspects are close to the genes that cause people to exhibit markers of race. If they happen to be close then it is possible that there is a statistical correlation, if not then the statistical correletaion is unlikely. I don't want to but in here and edit a disputed article without doing a lot more reading of it and the dispute, but it seems to me that a text closer to the following would be more reasonable:

A genetic contribution for intelligence, possibly related to neuron structure or function, brain size, or brain metabolism, would be close to genes that provide racial markers, or even the same genes that provide the racial marker.

There are other factors (racism most obvious amongst them, but culture also a real possibility) that may provide an environmental reason for different races having differing IQ, but I think the above fairly summs up the genetic possibility. I suspect that much of the dispute on the page is the possibility that some believe that the genes for IQ are the same as those for the racial markers and others believe that this is not the case. But I guess that nobody wants to say it "out loud" — KayEss | talk 18:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

No time right now but ... What is being postulated is that the genes that may or may not control these aspects are close to the genes that cause people to exhibit markers of race. is incorrect. That's called genetic linkage, but that's not what is being postulated. The population of Ireland has a greater proportion of red hair and fair skin because of linkage. But malaria resitance and dark skin are also correlated, but not because of linkage. More later... --Rikurzhen 18:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see how the data rules out the possibility of genetic linkage, but I don't think that's the point either. I was thinking of keeping this high level as it was something from the introduction of the article. My understanding is that skin colour is controlled by a huge number of genes and that a main method for malaria resistance is afforded by a single gene (which when doubled leads to Sickle Cell Anemia), but I'm sure there are many others. At best this is comparing many genes to many genes which I suppose is what we would expect from any race markers and intelligence.
The article is talking about reasons for a correlation between race and IQ. If such a correlation exists then it can be explained in many ways, and one of those postulated is genetic. If it is genetic then I can't see any other mechanism other than that the genes that control IQ are linked to those for race markers or that they are the same. Is there some other mechanism that I'm missing? If such is the case then please re-word what I've written to include it, but in any case I hope that we both agree that removing an un-necessary tautology is a good thing. — KayEss | talk 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

If it is genetic then I can't see any other mechanism other than that the genes that control IQ are linked to those for race markers or that they are the same. Is there some other mechanism that I'm missing? Yes. A few pieces of background:

  • Self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) is not identical to skin color, although there is an obvious association.
  • Mating between individuals of different SIRE is relatively rare.
  • SIRE (in the U.S.) is strongly associated to ancestry.
  • SIRE is associated with variation in allele frequencies at neutral loci across the genome, but particularly in the correlation structure of allele frequencies
  • IQ is a polygenic and multifactorial quantitative trait.
  • Like skin color, some variation in IQ is associated with variation in SIRE.

So if neutral markers across the genome vary between SIRE populations, and SIRE populations vary phenotypically in a polygenic trait (IQ), then it is possible that the frequency of functionally significant alleles vary between SIRE populations. Ancestry (and the relatively degree of inbreeding within SIRE populations) would thus be responsible for the functional variation, which would merely be co-inherited with variation in SIRE marker traits like skin color. The low level of interbreeding between SIRE groups maintains these associations, rather than the force of linkage disequilibrium. --Rikurzhen 22:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is the discussion really about this sort of mixing of terms? Clearly if you use self-identified race/ethnicity rather than genetic markers for race/enthnicity then there need not be any correlation between SIRE and any genes. This is an obvious and self-evident result. Immediatly before the sentence we are discussing the article says "The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect a genetic component." If you are going to use SIRE rather than genetic race/ethnicity markers then there must be a discussion of whether or not SIRE is able to imply any systematic genetic variation at all let alone any possible genetic variation in IQ. — KayEss | talk 04:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Geographical populations vary in alleles across the genome. According to most studies, including most recently Tang et al (2005), grouping individuals on the basis of genotype alone reconstitues SIRE groups. Tang et al (2005) had a disconcordance rate of genotype and SIRE of 0.14%. --Rikurzhen 05:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
You said I was missing something. Clearly I am again. You are saying that SIRE is as good as genetic markers, but you also say that I am missing something by saying that genetic markers necessarily come from genetic background. I can't work out how you can, on the one hand, say that any genes that may affect a phenotypic expression that is correlated with genes that act as reliable race markers don't also very across SIRE if the genetic correlation is so good. — KayEss | talk 05:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
"genes that act as reliable race markers" are a much larger set of loci (not necessarily near genes) than "the genes that cause people to exhibit [visible] markers of race". you can reliably predict SIRE (in the U.S. population) from the pattern of variation at random locations across the genome. "the genes that cause people to exhibit markers of race", such as genes for skin color, are relatively few and may or may not be sufficient to predict SIRE.
in fact, I would not be surprised if so-called visible makers of race were not sufficient to predict SIRE very accurately. another short-coming of "race" is that while the this SIRE assocation is true of the emigrant populations of the U.S., but if you take samples from equal geographic distributions the division between races would appear arbitrary. the story is a little bit more blurry for people sampled randomly from the entire world population because of population density (e.g. 1/3 of the samples would be from India or China).
sorry I'm having such a hard time explaining this. I think the race article has a better explanation. --Rikurzhen 06:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think we've been talking about a subtle difference. I was saying that if you can find a set of genetic markers that reliably indicates SIRE (and I guess I meant all genes, but say as much) and if there is a genetic component to intelligence then any difference between SIRE groups in intelligence is necessarily included in those genes. I think you are saying that if you take the genes that are known to contribute to, say, skin colour (or in fact any other sub-set of the full set of genetic markers) then clearly any other genes that may control intelligence are not necessarily linked. — KayEss | talk 08:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oh! yes!!! In fact, the method of mapping by admixture linkage disequilibrium could be used to identify genes that cause IQ differences between whites and African Americans if such genes do exist by looking for linkage of IQ differences to ancestry informative markers. [1] --Rikurzhen 08:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I assume that KayEss deleted my posting accidentally. I will recopy it here:

I will try to clarify a bit what is meant by genes being "close to" other genes. Chromosomes are extremely long and in the sequence of all the things that need to happen for sexual reproduction to take place the two long strings of DNA that link together like a zipper come unzippered so they can go their separate ways. Your mother's strip ordinarily will go one way and your father's strip ordinarily will go the other way. But sometimes the two strips twist around each other and the "tail" of one is swapped with the "tail" of another. So what was schematically ffffffffffffffffffffffff and mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ends up being ffffffffmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm and mmmmmmmmffffffffffffffff. It is easy to get the first f and the last m together on a new string because wherever the switchover occurs they will still end up togehter. But it is much less likely to get the first f hooked up with the second m and its string. It still happens, but the break has to occur just at the right point. In short, things that are close together tend to stay together and things that are far apart don't tend quite so strongly to stay together. P0M 18:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Because of this cross-over phenomenon, which many people don't know about, it is possible to inherit characteristics from all four of your grandparents. That's another hitch in the thinking about the [racial] inheritance of characteristics. "Great grandfather was Ainu, but I don't have any of his genes, thank God." Well, maybe you don't and maybe you do.

I think KayEss is probably correct as far as characterizing the incorrect thinking that fuels lots of interest in the subject. I don't mind saying that very loudly, but doing so doesn't help much. What needs to happen is the kind of education that makes members of the public "intelligent consumers" of science and pseudo-science assertions. Unfortunately the trend all over the world is to grant to authority figures the right to tell us members of the masses what we must conclude. Some of them tie their assertions back to interpretations of some kind of holy writ, and some of them establish themselves as the mouthpiece of one "spirit" or another. Authoritarianism is on the rise. Erich Fromm discussed the psychology behind this movement years ago, and he seems to have described what was in his future as well as he described what was in his past. One function of a good article can be to demonstrate with Microcornucopia precision and grace and clarity what is really going on. P0M 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are cases where the controlling genes for two characteristics are not even on the same chromosome and yet they are very frequently found together. People therefore may assume that, e.g., Chinese people can't have curly or wavy hair. The evidence for [race] and [intelligence] indicates that when you define the word "race" a certain way, and when you define the word "intelligence" a certain way, then you get different average [intelligences] for different [races]. Why that correlation occurs is still up in the air for serious students of the sciences but may be a firmly established matter of faith for people with certain ideological axes to grind. P0M 19:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Back to the chart caption

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The first chart caption has been edited to remove the POV about the chart itself. It's not just the cause and meaning that are debated. There are significant criticisms about the fairness and validity of the data and its representation that need to be acknowledged in the caption.

Also, what's the general thought about moving the intelligence link to the first sentence? Seems like "intelligence and social science" is unnecessary, since that's covered in social science. Also, my eventual desire is to see a parallel in the contested assumptions: one bullet point on race, with the link to the race article, and one on intelligence, with the link to the intelligence article for parallel construction. This is all part of teaching the controversy, but keeeping the summary as brief as possible. I'd prefer intelligence first appear in the bullet point and be the link to the main article. Makes everything nice and symmetrical like a bell curve. Comments? Jokestress 16:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

No one disputes the data itself. Only whether genetics are involved is a matter of dispute. If you don't believe me, send an email to Lewontin, Sternberg, or Neisser and ask them if they dispute the data. Dd2 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The Race_and_intelligence#External_links articles are a good collection to be famaliar with. --Rikurzhen 17:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
(1) Dd2 is right. (2) We need to have the Crux of NPOV issue discussion above before we can make any progress because you seem to have a different idea about the scope and proper treatment of the controversy. --Rikurzhen 16:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I have seen questions about the sample size, esp. the Asian data and issues about the "race" of the self-identified Hispanics. Might take me a couple of weeks to read all the stuff to find it. Lemme go look at the crux of the NPOV issue, but then I am done for today. Jokestress 17:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
There's definitely less certainty about the precise numbers for "Asians" and "Hispanics" as well as the question of whether these labels refer to a homogenous group w.r.t. ancestry (clearly they don't - e.g., East Asians, Southeast Asians, and South/Indian Asians are readily distinguishable). But the averages of each group are definitely different than that of Blacks or Whites whenever sampled. That is, rank order of the means is certain, but the true population mean may differ slightly from what's shown. --Rikurzhen 22:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

may be gone

I may not be around for a while. Check User:Rikurzhen for details &/or notices. --Rikurzhen 20:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


what's missing? test bias background and controversy

Something is missing: a discussion of test bias w.r.t. (historical) controversy. S&R(1988, pp107-121) point out that this was the primary focus of concern about R&I research. The multiple definitions of test bias should be introduced in the background section when discussing cognitive ability, a summary of criticism should go in the public controversy section (along with the conclusions of experts), and we should use race and intelligence controversy to give the many details. Terms/ideas to distinguish:

  • cultural bias
  • cultural disadvantage
  • cultural loading
  • bias as mean differences
  • bias as improper standardization
  • bias as content
  • bias as differential validity/prediction
  • bias as selection model
  • bias as the wrong criterion
  • bias as atmosphere
  • bias as motivation

Related articles:

--Rikurzhen 22:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote up a draft. As the controversy section gets bigger, we'll want to move material to the race and intelligence controversy article for the sake of Wikipedia:Summary Style --Rikurzhen 05:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

APA and WSJ statements

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Today's little project on this is to explain a little more clearly the frequently-cited APA and WSJ pieces. I have added a reference to Gottfredson's background piece from intelligence. I have noted that 52 signed, 48 did not, with a footnote to lay out the breakdown of non-signers. It's clear that it is Gottfredson's opinion this is "mainstream," but since half the experts wouldn't sign it for various reasons, this opinion is not without significant dissent. And before someone takes out "conservative," it appears on the entry here for Wall Street Journal, and I can rustle up at least 20 other published acknowledgements in places like National Review etc. saying the editorial page is the principal outlet for serious analysis of public policy from a conservative perspective. Jokestress 18:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Although that is a problem, that's not the fundamental problem. Let me repeat DAD's comment from above. --Rikurzhen 18:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out what sorts of edits it would take to end the NPOV dispute. Here is a key phrase from Jokestress that I believe crystallizes the issue:

This research is based on two sets of disputed terminologies, so any attempt to separate the research from the dispute is POV-pushing.

My response is, roughly:

These minority positions are acknowledged at length. Efforts to entangle such positions with consensus research constitute POV-pushing.

That said, I'm willing to entertain Jokestresses' mandate. What's not clear to me are its operational consequences. Must we simply have a phrase at the beginning of each page that says, "Some researchers maintain that neither race nor intelligence can be scientifically defined or studied, making all related research invalid (see <link to detailed discussion of this POV>)"? I could get comfortable with that. --DAD T 00:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The fundamental problem is that the scientfic concensus view is being obfuscated by using language that trivalizes the APA and WSJ consensus statements. This is an obvious violation of both the spirit and the literal reading of WP:NPOV. Scientists do not write "position papers". Position papers are written by political parties and political think tanks. Scientists write consensus statments (among other things). The APA is not a political organization or a think tank. It is the professional organization of scholars in the field of psychology. The authors of the APA statement don't work for the APA, they're academics who work at universities. The characterization of the WSJ statement is completely unacceptable. While it was first published in the WSJ, the mainstream statement was subsequently published in several scholarly venues. Thus, the bit about the Wall Street Journal editoral page is irrelevant. I have no problems stateing the numbers of signatories and not so long as the details are given in a way that doesn't bias the reader to think that scientific opinion is split 52 to 48, which the current draft does.

A more accurate and balanced statement would be 100 experts could be found before the submission deadline. 52 signed the statement; 11 did not know enough to say; 7 indicated that the statement does not represent the mainstream; and 30 indicated other reasons. Of the 37 who did not sign for reasons other than not knowning enough, 11 explicitly disagreed with at least one item, 14 declined to sign despite agreeing with the content, 2 did not want to sign "at this time", 10 gave no reason for not signing.

The fact that these statements are (approximately) representative of the mainstream scientific concensus is verified by their independent support of one another, by the fact that they approximately agree with the survey of expert opinion data from Snyderman and Rothman (1987) (actually the statements emphasize more uncertainty than the opinon survey indicates), and by reading the papers cited in the reports.

So... we need to stop skirting around the issue that DAD brought up with his comment that I pasted above. The mainstream view of scientists is clearly documented by multiple sources that paint a consistent picture. The existence of controvery is both noted and described in the article, but NPOV demands proportionality and appropriate attribution of majority versus minority views. --Rikurzhen 18:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a more accurate statement would be of 131 signatures solicited, Gottfredson secured 52. Gottfredson's piece is an editorial and is marked as such in both the original and reprint. These are position papers. The APA (like any trade federation) frequently writes position papers. Gottfredson got less than 40% positive response. This is not like evolution or global warming where there is a near-unanimous scientific consensus. The word "mainstream" was introduced by Gottfredson but is clearly a POV move on her part. That needs to be acknowledged. Jokestress 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Qualitatively it is very much like evolution and global warming. Quantitatively, it is much more like global warming circa 1990: a great deal is known but the most controversial question is not resolved to unanimous concensus. Re: the WSJ responses... Unless you have secret knowledge, we don't know what the 31 experts who couldn't be found might have said about the WSJ statement. Only 7 indicated on their own that it wasn't "mainstream". Only 11 indicated disagreement with at least some aspect of the content. Another 11 claimed to not be knowledgable enough (i.e. they aren't experts). Another 10 gave no reason at all for not signing, which leaves us with no interpretation of what they think about the content. 14 gave reason other than disagreeing with the content for not signing, such as fearing the personal and political reprocussions of having their name appear on a list with Arthur Jensen (who has been physically and verbally assulted in the past). Another 2 did not want to sign "at this time", which is also impossible to interpret with certainty, but doesn't sound like a disagreement with the content. --Rikurzhen 19:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
We will get to the DAD thing in due time. The crux of the problem is the implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence. Jokestress 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The crux of the problem is the implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence. Have you read what the concensus statements say about that issue? Consider the WSJ statement: There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. What does that imply or assert? Perhaps you mean this statement: Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. This is not a matter of the authors' opinions, but a reference to the findings of the Snyderman & Rothman (1987) survey. --Rikurzhen 19:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

the discussion between the bars below is irrelvant and has gone off topic. --Rikurzhen 21:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gottfredson (2005b); Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing". We need to distinguish between people's opinions (expert or not) about genetic involvement and the evidence on which they base this opinion. See y'all tomorrow. Jokestress 19:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
What kind of response is that? In one sense, the collective knowledge of science consists only of the opinions of scientists. However, it is the method by which scientsits arrive at their opinions that give them merit. So yes, we do need to describe the evidence (done here and here), but for the sake of efficient summary in a section describing the controversy, accruately describing and attributing the mainstream opinion of scientists is essential. --Rikurzhen 19:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Gottfredson is clearly a POV-pusher. I am sure in the ensuing 3 years before the analysis got published, she could have checked with the 31 people who blew her off to ascertain why. I am going to challenge "mainstream" until I see better evidence than something cobbled together in two weeks and unsigned by 60% of those solicited. A valiant but failed attempt at consensus.
OK, now I am really gone until Monday. Just FYI, at the rate we are going, I anticipate about 4-5 months to get this NPOV. We need to revisit the first graph caption again already, among other things. Jokestress 20:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Gottfredson is clearly a POV-pusher True or not, that's irrelevant! If, by NPOV you mean making your personal POV about R&I the predominant one, then that should never happen (WP:NPOV). The WSJ statement is approximately identical in substance to the APA statement, both of which reflect expert opinion seen in the S&R(1987) survey, all of which are supported by easy to verfy literature references. Claiming that the scientific concensus is other than what these reports describe is a non-starter (unless you know of relavant literature that the rest of us do not). --Rikurzhen 20:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

From the point above the irrelevant/isolated section ... Jokestress, your actions suggest to me that you either (a) misunderstand what precisely the scientific concensus does and doesn't say, or (b) want to obfuscate the scientfic concensus opinion in favor of your own opinion. Based on your crux of the problem is the implication... comment, I am inclined to believe (a) rather than (b). Clearly, (a) is something we can overcome together, but (b) is a violation of NPOV. --Rikurzhen 21:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is the implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence

Because I anticipate that this will not be resolved until we discuss it in detail, here is some commentary on the APA & WSJ statement. Let's start with the WSJ statement, which is the shorter and easier of the two.

  • The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence (1-6) seems to reflect the opinions of all experts but the multiple-independent intelligences crowd, such as Sternberg, Gardner, and colleages.
  • Group Differences (7-8) are just a matter of fact
  • Practical Importance (9-13) is again old school stuff and seems to reflec the opinions of all experts except the same IQ is only academic crowd (i.e., Sternberg, Garder, et al)
  • Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences (14-18) is concensus, but take note that many non-experts confuse this issue with that of group differences and so attack both errantly
  • skipping ahead ... Implications for Social Policy (25) is just a statement about the relationship of facts versus values -- universal
  • Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences (19-24) we should examine one item at a time
    • 19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging... this is discussed in the article, and both sides are given plenty of room to make their point; but the phrasing "no persuasive evidence" is a safe way to say it because most people don't seem to be convinced
    • 20. non-controversial; you can read about it in the NY Times
    • 21. some controversy, but the opinions S&R opinion survey backs up this claim
    • 22. seemingly the "crux" that bothers Jokestress. Let's go sentence by sentence
      • There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. -- a broad reading of this should be noncontroversial; some may think they know what class of answer is correct, but no one can say to have the definitive answer in detail
      • The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). - a non-controversial warning about misapplying individual heritability to group heritability
      • In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. - again more warning
      • Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. - the phrasing "Most experts believe" indicates we're talking about the S&R(1987) survey again, where the plurality/majority of experts/informed-experts hold this opinion. "could be involved too", in one reading, merely says that most experts don't discount the possibilty that genetics "could be involved too". this would account for all experts but the ~15% who believe only environment is involved. although from the S&R survey we know that if anonymously asked their opinion, most experts think genetics really is involved too
    • 23. non-controversial, just a matter of fact
    • 24. non-controversial caveat to this research

I don't see anything in the WSJ statement that isn't (a) noncontoversial or (b) believed by a strong majority of experts (or nearly all experts depending on how you process phrases like "could be involved too"). So, the "implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence" is not a problem with the WSJ statement (nor with the APA statement).

(Hypothetically!) But even if they did present that view, they would be speaking for at least 52% of responding experts in the S&R survey. Indeed, your "problem" doesn't rule out the possibility of counter evidence against a genetic contribution, which could be driving the second most common response to that survey question -- The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion. Thus, it would hardly be a problem (for WP or them) to claim that a majority of experts believe there is some evidence. --Rikurzhen 22:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The current form of Jokestress objection about the reliability of the WSJ as representative of mainstream science is in the form of a footnote with the body text "but note objections[12]". That won't work. I understand Jokestress argument (even though I think she is wrong—that's not the point), but the objection needs to be attributed to somebody else. Wikipedia cannot be a primary source introducing Jokestress' argument. If the argument is novel (as it appears in the current form: Wikipedia is having objections) then it needs to be removed as per WP:NOR. If the argument has been made by somebody else, then that source needs to be cited. It was hopeful that the Sternberg/Miele interview contained such a passage, but came up blank. Remember that we aren't allowed to use common sense (especially not common sense that we don't agree on, as in the case of Jokestress' objection). Somebody else needs to make the common sense observation for us. We can report evidence, and are often tempted to report selectively, but we cannot introduce novel conclusions about evidence. So, Jokestress, please find any source that allows us say something like the following: "Jay S. Silver (2003) has questioned the representativeness of the statement based on the number of solicited signatures. Gottfredsson (2001) reports that yaddayadda....". ���If you must, write a blog entry yourself and quote that. But WP is expressively forbidden from becoming a primary source. We cannot have anybody, later, writing something like this
The encyclopedia "Wikipedia" points out that the WSJ statement may not be representative of...
To make this clear: any reference would work. Actually, I was sure that Sternberg had written something to that effect, maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Arbor 19:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

footnotes out of wack

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

some numbers are missing??? --Rikurzhen 00:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Something whacky happens when footnotes are placed inside of pictures (footnotes in pictures get numbering priority). I suggest you remove the two footnotes from inside the pictures and replace them with something such as "See footnote x below." —Wayward 02:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think this is fixed now. If anyone moves a section with a footnote, please re-order the footnotes, remembering that any footnotes in charts must appear before notes on the article body. Jokestress 17:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Public controversy revision

Latest comment: 20 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Before we get into the WSJ editorial, let me show you my proposed revision to the public controversy section. Like the history section, comments are listed chronolgically. As I said, I am going to challenge Gottfredson's "mainstream" claim and this "consensus" claim y'all have come up with, both assertions being inaccurate IMHO.

Public controversy

Expert opinion is split regarding not only causation theories, but the scientific validity of the research itself. In a 1987 "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing,” approximately 600 respondents were asked the cause of the Black-White IQ differential:

  • 45% both genetic and environmental
  • 24% insufficient data to support any reasonable opinion
  • 15% environmental only
  • 14% did not respond
  • 1% genetic only [2]

The 1994 publication of The Bell Curve prompted a range of expert responses. That year, the 10,000-member American Anthropological Association criticized “mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence” in a consensus statement:

…differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits). [3]

In 1995, the 150,000-member American Psychological Association issued a report titled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns":[4]

It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis… Thus the issue ultimately comes down to a personal judgment: how different are the relevant life experiences of Whites and Blacks in the United States today? At present, this question has no scientific answer.

Also in 1995, a 52-person ad hoc coalition of researchers signed a Wall Street Journal editorial titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" [5], meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence" (though 60% of those selected to sign did not sign the editorial). [6])

Stephen Jay Gould revised his book The Mismeasure of Man in 1996 to address issues raised in ‘’The Bell Curve.’’ Echoing Gould, Tate & Audette (2001) argued that issues of "race" and "intelligence" are pseudo-questions because both concepts are arbitrary social constructions. Similarly, in a 2005 review paper, Sternberg and colleagues question the basis of race and intelligence research[7]:

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists working on intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends.

  1. ^ American Anthropological Association. Statement on "Race" and Intelligence. Adopted December 1994.

I might check in later today. If so, we can discuss your counter-proposals, and we are going to get back to that first graph caption in the near future, too. Jokestress 09:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I skimmed it, and in principle the fundamental material looks fine. Obviously, an editoral opinion bleeds thru the word choices, but I won't go into that in fear that it would distract you from discussing NPOV in the Talk:Race_and_intelligence#APA_and_WSJ_statements section. --Rikurzhen 17:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


That's what this section is about. The WSJ ad/editorial is not the same as the APA position paper in tone or quality. Once we have the WSJ thing vectored for what it is, we can talk about the APA statements, which are more nuanced, qualified, and created with six months' input instead of rubber-stamped after a couple of weeks. I'll do a point-by-point comment on the WSJ ed/ad/whatever this week if you want, but I suggest we focus on the APA. Jokestress 18:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The two are certiainly different in size and detail, but the conclusions are essentially identical (I've outlined the WSJ statement above.) Vectoring on motivations is a foolish and inappropriate way to analyze scientific writing. --Rikurzhen 18:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gottfredson mainstream statement

It was a paid advertisement in the WSJ, not an editorial. hitssquad 12:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Gottfredson's editorial certainly looks and reads like a full-page ad, but these guys are going to insist we cite evidence. Sounds kind of like the Discovery Institute renting out the Smithsonian last month to screen their Intelligent Design film, then using the Smithsonian's name to validate their POV. Kinda like her 1997 follow-up in a journal she edited... Anyway, her op-ed/ad/whatever is the opinion of a tiny number compared to the AAA and APA position statements. Jokestress 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The AAA and APA "concensus statements" (that's what scientists call them), have a small number of writers and do not have the quantifiable aspect that a publication signed by 52 experts does. (There were, however, a number of published responses to the APA report which chided it from several POVs for failing to mentioned relevant data.) Nonetheless, the APA and WSJ statements say approximately the same thing (discuss above). But what really alarms me is your focus on trivializing a single piece of data and villifying a single author, as if that somehow was supposed to be sufficient evidence that your personal POV is true. That's (1) completely out of line for a WP editor and (2) frankly the kind of tactic used by creationists. --Rikurzhen 18:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
villifying a single author: "Stephen Jay Gould, one of the leading critics of race and intelligence research, has been accused of "scholarly malfeasance,"[17] tainting his research with a Marxist bias[18], and presenting misleading statistics.[19]"
Gottfredson (the one and only author of the WSJ) is gonna get equal treatment to Gould. Both are aggressive POV pushers. Spare me the ad hominems about creationism. See ya tomorrow! Jokestress 18:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
"Stephen Jay Gould..." That's from a paragraph saying hereditarians (>half of the expert sample) are associated with Nazi symphathizers, and right before the section that calls them racists and compares them to Hitler! Mentioning reliable criticisms of the the most politically charged critic is appropriate for at least a hint of balance. Spare you the ad hominems? "Sounds kind of like the Discovery Institute renting out the Smithsonian". I'm a biologist and I understand actual creationists; in this context, Gould and friends are the "creationist" (they're literally anti-evolution when it comes to human behavior, see Not in Our Genes). Do you know of any reputable published criticisms of Gottfredson's writings on this subject, specifically of the WSJ statement? --Rikurzhen 19:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
You are coming after me. That's different than my commenting on possible similarities with Gotfredson's WSJ and the Smithsonian thing. I'll get the Counterpunch and the other Gottfredson rebuttals in the fulness of time.
One last thing, please stop trying to school me on what you think scientists are or do with passive-aggressive jabs like "fundamental misunderstanding" and this:
"concensus statements" (that's what scientists call them): first of all, scientists spell it differently, and they often use "position statements" synonymously [8], [9], [10], etc. .
You don't have the market cornered on what science is. Either do I. I suggest we stay cool and enjoy the collaborative process. I am learning lots, and I hope you are, too! Byeee! Jokestress 19:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
A consensus statement (forgive the typo) is "a comprehensive analysis by a panel of experts (i.e., consensus panel) of a scientific or medical issue". A position statement is not synonymous, but I can't find a good definition; my impression from reading examples is that a position statement is generally focused on policy prescriptions, scientific or political. ... but that's mostly irrelvant now because I changed the wording in the article to "majority scientific view..."
If it seems that I'm coming after you, then I must appologize. However, your focus on analyzing small details of this article (or small details of the APA/WSJ statements) without taking in the totality of the issue is unhelpful right now. I won't stop insisting that we focus on the NPOV issues that I (tried to) describe at length in the section above; in particular we need to settle the question of exactly what is (among experts) noncontroversial, disagreed with by a small minority, or hotly debated with a large minority. see Talk:Race_and_intelligence#APA_and_WSJ_statements --Rikurzhen 19:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Wikipedia:Cite sources should be enough, but I detect a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific publication that I am inclined to comment on. Regarding publication: most (all?) scientific publications in scholarly journals are defined by U.S. law as "advertisements" because the authors pay a "page charge" to support publication. So if someone tells you that a paper is an "advertisement" they're not telling you very much. Ironically, the WSJ statement is a newspaper editorial[11](p.17), which AFAIK does not require a "page charge". --Rikurzhen 18:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

You sure it isn't an op-ed ad? Looks like one to me (layout-wise). The only reason I question hitssquad is that it is listed in the WSJ archives. Given Gottfredson's presentation style, I don't imagine she would volunteer that this was a paid placement, so maybe a note to WSJ is in order. Counterpunch had a contemporaneous rebuttal to the WSJ version. I might contact them for a copy. They may know if it was an Discovery Institute style move or not. Jokestress 18:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I had thought it was a full-page ad. Maybe it was an editorial. Gottfredson certainly seemed to be calling it an editorial in her article on the subject in the Journal Intelligence (24(1) 13-23): "I therefore approached the editorial features editor, David Brooks, at the Wall Street Journal to see if he would be interested in my writing an essay on the rising crescendo of misinformation on intelligence. He was not. He said he would, however, consider a short statement signed by 10 to 15 experts[...]". hitssquad 02:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The question is what sort of references is needed to make any sort of statement in Wikipedia. We want to say "Mainstream science thinks so-and-so about this-and-that". We are allowed to do that, according to the NPOV rules, if we provide a citation. Normally, this is pretty hard to do, even for widely accepted scientific facts, because such facts are basic assumptions and seldom made explicit in any kind of "referenceable" way. But in a few areas, like evolution and intelligence research, where there is a large disparity between public opinion and scientific fact, such references actually exist. To me, it seems like the WSJ and APA citations meet the "gold standard" of reliability. If that's not enough, I cannot see how the guidelines in WP:NPOV can be ever enforced, and in that case Wikipedia has bigger problems than the current article. (This would all be totally different if there were published "consensus" statements by other researchers (in relevant areas) that contradicted WSJ or APA.) Arbor 19:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The problem is not what the WSJ said, it's that they are a higly unreliable source - it isn't a scientific publication, it's a right-wing newspaper. Or do we take their word for it that global warming is a fraud, and that there were WMDs in Iraq? Guettarda 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't read right-wing publications, so I wouldn't know. The WSJ didn't issue the statement, scientists did. Find me some who disagree. Scientific publications that agree with the APA or WSJ statements are legion; many major journals are devoted to them. Arbor 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
AAA = position statement = "race" + "intelligence" = bogus research
APA = position statement = created by panel over six months, unanimously adopted
WSJ = editorial (paid?) = one author, got just 40% of those solicited to rubber-stamp it
As soon as the WSJ editorial/ad is dispensed with as not a consensus statement, I suggest we go through the APA for this NPOV discussion, which will be much more productive than AAA or WSJ. APA seems to be the middle ground between the two and by far the most widely accepted. I will continue to take issue with the Gottfredson piece as "mainstream." Comparing it to the APA statement shows just how deficient it is. Her publishing record, politics, and career do not suggest mainstream. She is a hardcore policy activist. [12] I'm gonna do a WP biography of her soon. Jokestress 01:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
You have a WP:NPOV issue, with a dash of WP:NOR. Why don't you re-read this talk page at "Crux of NPOV issue" and work your way down. --Rikurzhen 02:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jokestress, I want to respond to just one issue. I'm not sure you're being fair in your treatment of the Gottfredson statement. It was considered to be non-mainstream by 7% of respondents, and to be mainstream by 66% (9x as many), though only 52% signed. Most of the 14% that didn't sign despite agreeing gave the reason that they feared the personal and professional consequences, which in the past have included death threats. Polls don't generally factor in non-respondents as feeling one way or the other.--Nectarflowed T 02:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
130 parties were contacted. 100 responded in time. 52 / 130 = 40%. Your statistics are only for the 100 and not the 130 Jokestess was apparently referring to. See my link above to the Intelligence pdf reprint. hitssquad 02:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
From what I remember about statistics and surveys, a 77% response rate is excellent for a mail-back survey (maybe because it was short). The response rate for the Snyderman and Rothman survey was ~60% (it was long). Professors have pretty tight schedules and often put off doing things even when you can hunt them down personally. ;) But Nectarflowed is right, polls don't generally factor in non-respondents as feeling one way or the other. Also, if I were a professor w/o tenure and was asked to sign that thing in 1994 (a couple months after The Bell Curve was released), I wouldn't have. --Rikurzhen 03:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The arguments about the WSJ statement above are, broadly, spurious. None of the "paid" "advertisement" claims have been backed up with anything. The statement was drafted by a member of the editorial board of a primary research journal on intelligence (Gottfredson, Intelligence) and signed by more than 50% of respondents. Claims that Gottfredson is a "hardcore policy activist" are original research (the citation certainly doesn't say that), as noted. Those harping on the 130 invitees versus the 100 respondents, come off it; non-responders count as no data, not disagreement (and if you doubt, see Gottfredson's follow-up). The response rate is high enough to be beyond suspicion. The statement has never been retracted or modified. The signers have not pulled out. No other consensus statements have been published by the purported "true" majority of intelligence researchers -- as an ad, or anywhere else -- to counter the statement. The APA statement, the Snyderman & Rothman study, and the WSJ editorial are consonant. The consensus is clear. The one issue that merits discussion is the difference between the APA and WSJ language regarding a genetic component in racial IQ disparity. They're different. --DAD T 06:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeedy on the differences in WSJ and APA, since heritable intelligence by race is the crux of the NPOV issue. Now, the APA seems pretty NPOV, working to strike a balance and represent all views. Per Rikurzhen's definition of consensus, it was created by a panel and unanimously ratified. Gottfredson's editorial was not created with a panel and response was far from unanimous. I imagine the major sticking points for most non-signers were the claims of heritability, and that this was the "mainstream" view. Gottfredson is at least as controversial as Gould. Her activism has led to several major changes in hiring and employment policies at local and federal levels. [Jokestress]
Now you lost me. Nowhere are we claiming that the size of the genetic component in racial IQ has been settled by mainstream science, nor are the WSJ or APA reports making such claims. What you call "heritable intelligence by race" is indeed very much open. I thought that the article made this admirably clear, but I invite you to strengthen the language further. I also remain puzzled by you seeing a large dissonance in content or tone between APA and WSJ. This article uses these papers to validate claims about broadly accepted claims about intelligence (for example, its heritability) and its correlation with race (for example, the existance of large gaps in intelligence scores). On such issues, these articles agree. Neither article contains any conclusions about the importance of the genetic component. (That would be pretty strange, too, because there is no consensus about it.) Arbor 20:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
It would help if we could be as specific as possible. I guessed (above) that item 22 from the WSJ statement is what you think is controversial. Here's item 22 sentence by sentence:
  • There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. -- a broad reading of this should be noncontroversial; some may think they know what class of answer is correct, but no one can say to have the definitive answer in detail
  • The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). - a non-controversial warning about misapplying individual heritability to group heritability
  • In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. - again more non-controversial warning
  • Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. - the phrasing "Most experts believe" indicates (to me) that we're talking about the S&R(1987) survey again, where the plurality/majority of experts/informed-experts hold this opinion. "could be involved too", in one reading, merely says that most experts don't discount the possibilty that genetics "could be involved too". this would account for all experts but the ~15% who believe only environment is involved.
Where (precisely) do we disagree? On what basis? Isn't the split in expert opinion already reflected in the article? --Rikurzhen 20:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

To close off an older discussion, the claims that "race" is so ill-defined that it cannot be properly studied is, by either consensus statement, a minority opinion so insignificant that neither even mentions it. (We can discuss the AAA statement; when anthropologists release a statement on studies of intelligence, I'm inclined to do no more than report their position.) That "intelligence" is similarly ill-defined is dispatched in both statements. The APA statement, after much hemming and hawing, states that the g-based hierarchy is the most widely accepted model, and the WSJ statement is quite concise. --DAD T 06:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is hardly closed off. It seems the opinion that "race" is biologically meaningless is the majority POV among those who are experts. That's a topic of the race page, though. If we are going to quantify intelligence and make claims of heritability, then "race" needs to be clearly defined. I have a whole slew of comments on the biological meaninglessness of "race" I will add whenever I can get off these talk pages long enough. Speaking of which, if there are no objections, how about we put the "public controversy" section I proposed above into the article, and y'all can start whittling away at places you perceive as POV. Jokestress 19:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
It would be very exciting if you could validate your claim about the majority POV among those who are experts. That would be a valuable addition to Race#The current lack of consensus among evolutionary scientists. In any case, most people I have talked to (among researchers in biology, medicine, etc) who hadn't made up their mind before did so after the Tang (2005) paper, so I would be especially eager to see any recent data. Arbor 20:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
FYI, Neil Risch was the last author on the Tang (2005) paper (PMID 15625622). He discusses the results in an interview in the first issue of PLoS Genetics [13]. --Rikurzhen 20:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Anthropologists are the primary experts on race (evolutionary biologists certainly are as important as anthropologists when discussing evolution, but most people how are experts on human evolution and population genetics are anthropologists), and psychologists the primary experts on intelligence, which creates plenty of opportunity for confusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Summary of Gottfredson biography

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Responding to Jokestress' comment, I don't see anything questionable in Gottfredson's bibliography(here). Her career appears to have started with vocational issues, including promotion of Blacks, such as her paper "Providing Black Youth More Access to Enterprising Work," Vocational Guidance Quarterly, December 1978. Her early work also dealt with vocational issues and intelligence.

Her publications soon moved also into race, sex, and vocational issues, such as her paper "Race and Sex Differences in Occupational Aspirations: Their Development and Consequences for Occupational Segregation." Report no. 254, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 1978. A number of her papers dealt with the role of aspiration in vocation. She published some papers on the role of dyslexia and vocation issues in the early 80s.

August 1986 is her first work explicitly on race and intelligence, when she reads her paper "IQ vs. Training: Job Performance and Black-White Occupational Inequality" at an annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. In "May and November" 1986 she received, through her university, the first of her grants from the Pioneer Fund ($51,000), which was awarded "to researchers at Johns Hopkins University "to conduct a symposium on crime and unemployment.""

--Nectarflowed T 07:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Further summary

I collected the following notes while surveying it, in case anyone wants a summary (the source is pretty long).

Her grants from the Pioneer Fund, often labelled a funder of scientific racism, drew some attention at one point. This caused the University of Deleware, where she then worked, to refuse one of the grants (though they later accepted them again):

  • [2 July 1990. Letter from Andrew B. Kirkpatrick, Jr. (chairman of the University of Delaware Board of Trustees) to Harry F Weyher (Pioneer Fund). He says that the University wants to "enhance the racial and cultural diversity of faculty, staff, and students" and that it is "hampered" in pursuing this goal by the acceptance of Pioneer Fund grants. The letter is cited in Daniel Seligman, A Question of Intelligence (1992), p. 193.]
  • A response to the incident from Robert A Gordon: [30 March 1990. Letter from Robert A Gordon to University of Delaware administrators, cited in Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism and German National Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 113n34, and in Roger Pearson, Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend, 1991), pp. 13-14. Gordon writes: "... it has been difficult for Federal granting agencies, which depend on Congress for their budget allocations, to provide for research in this hotly contested area for some time. Accordingly private sources play a disproportionately large role, and are essential for maintaining the debate that is so essential to healthy science...having largely succeeded in interdicting Federal support, activists have been after one of the last sources of support that courageously operates at all in this intellectually taboo arena ..."]

Gottfredson explains the significance of the Pioneer Fund in her work:

  • Mercer, Joye. "A Fascination with Genetics: Pioneer Fund is at Center of Debate Over Research on Race and Development." Chronicle of Higher Education (December 7, 1994): A28-A29.
    • ["For scholars like Linda Gottfredson, a professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware who examines I.Q. and employment testing, the Pioneer Fund has been a godsend. 'When I would apply to federal agencies to get funding to study the role of intelligence in the work place, I was simply dismissed,' says Ms. Gottfredson, who has received $335,000 from the Pioneer Fund since 1988 and hasn't sought support from other foundations since then. 'Any proposal that investigates politically incorrect questions with regard to race and gender tends to be blackballed in the peer-review process. For some of us, the Pioneer Fund has been the only option.' ... 'What annoys me is that questions are asked about the Pioneer Fund that are not asked about other organizations, questions about a political agenda, about its history,' says Jan H. Blits, a professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware who has worked with Ms. Gottfredson."]

From there she published things regarding cognitive ability tests and vocational issues, including a paper titled "The Flight from g in Employment Testing" (here). She also published more things that dealt with vocation, intelligence, and race. She wrote articles that were against affirmative action, such as "When Job-Testing 'Fairness' Is Nothing But a Quota." Wall Street Journal (December 6, 1990), A18. And also "Racially Gerrymandering the Content of Police Tests to Satisfy U.S. Justice Department: A Case Study." Unpublished paper, February 6, 1997.[To appear in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.] Available here.

Other notable excerpt:

  • [17 June 1997. Robert A. Gordon, "How Smart Are We About What We Broadcast: An Open Letter to ABC News." This is available at www.pioneerfund.org/ABCletter.html . Gordon writes: "The two American Agenda segments on intelligence, using different reporters, thus cannily excluded from the discussion of scientific issues scientists who were interviewed at length by ABC News, such as Professors Gordon, Linda Gottfredson, and Philippe Rushton, who could have addressed scientific criticisms knowledgeably if afforded an opportunity to do so ... Long interviews recorded with two of these individuals [i.e., Gottfredson and Rushton] were not included at all in either segment ... No notice at all, in fact, was taken of the large amount of material supplied to you by Professor Linda Gottfredson and me of the stature of many Pioneer recipients and their frequent citation in a standard work on intelligence other than The Bell Curve."]

--Nectarflowed T 07:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just put up a basic Linda Gottfredson page to help people vector the source of the WSJ editorial. Jokestress 21:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

RfA process clarification

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For those who were involved in the arbitration case* regarding June events on this page, here's a process clarification from James F. (talk):

  • "The Committee voted to accept the [arbitration] case, not to follow any particular course of action. The comments [given] in opening the RfAr [were] meant to be a guide to whether or not there was something to investigate, not evidence for final decisions. The evidence sub-page is [now] for detailed evidence of specific breeches of policy, etc.."

--Nectarflowed T 10:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sternberg on WSJ "consensus"

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Skeptic: At Skeptic magazine, we are interested in examining the evidence for all claims. Herrnstein and Murray present what they consider to be the consensus of scholars working in the field of intelligence. Snyderman and Rothman (The IQ Controversy) present similar data and there was a statement recently in the The Wall Street Journal. You summarized this so-called consensus, if I can paraphrase, in the following manner, "IQ exists, it's heritable, there are group differences, and all this matters." But in your review of The Bell Curve you say, "the lay public remains sadly uninformed. Nothing could be further from the truth." So as Skeptics our question is, if there is this much disagreement, is psychology even a science in the same sense that physics is?

Sternberg: There is disagreement in physics and there is disagreement in biology. Active sciences always have disagreements within them. The general public usually doesn't get the full sense of the amount of disagreement because the information is filtered through the media and what comes out is only a portion of what's actually going on in science. Normally they would not even be aware of the disagreement in psychology except that this book (The Bell Curve) was written for the media. It was written with the purpose of stirring up this kind of controversy. So the general public becomes aware of these types of disagreements in psychology, but they exist in every active science.

Skeptic: Which then is a fairer description of your own position-(1) there is a consensus on the topics that Herrnstein and Murray discuss, or (2) yes, there is a consensus among psychometricians, but I (Robert Sternberg) and others disagree with it?

Sternberg: To the extent that there is a consensus it is certainly not Herrnstein's and Murray's. You mentioned the statement that appeared in the The Wall Street Journal, which a number of psychometricians signed. This statement was not totally coincident with the views of Herrnstein and Murray. It certainly wasn't coincident with mine. I would say that I don't think that consensus in science makes much difference. Science isn't done by majority rule. There is a misperception on the part of the public that even if you took a vote and 51% of the scientists said, "I think this is true," that would have any impact on whether it's really true or not. Science is not politics. There could be one person who believes something and that person might be right. In fact, most of the really important work in science has been the result of one person saying, "You guys are all wet, you're full of it!" and then proceeding to show that he is indeed right. So I think the conception of science as taking a vote, and whichever side gets 51% is right, is simply wrong. Science is not politics, we're not electing anyone. [14]

I'll continue to dredge up statements along these lines until we have this WSJ thing properly contextualized. The whole Skeptic article is quite interesting (especially his thoughts on the g factor) and worth a read. Jokestress 05:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Robert J. Sternberg, PhD, Yale University" is listed as an author on the APA consensus statement. --Rikurzhen 05:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
My issue isn't with the APA statement, as I have said before. Jokestress 05:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sternberg is completely inconsistent here. (1) He's going on a rant about consensus statements being pointless when he is himself an author on a statement that is concurring on most points with the WSJ statement. (2) Not only that, but a statement which backs The Bell Curve's summary of the science. --Rikurzhen 06:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Dredge all you want. It would be great if Sternberg (Sternberg, Mr. Contrarian himself) actually said, "Those views are not consensus." But he didn't. I wonder why. Heck, enough ancient history. Let's look at a recent review in Nature Reviews: Neuroscience (Gray and Thompson, NRN 5:471-482 [2004]), the #2 journal in neuroscience (by 2004 impact factor).
"In this review, we emphasize intelligence in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability (BOX 1). Also called FLUID INTELLIGENCE (Gf), it is related to analytical intelligence. Intelligence in this sense is not at all controversial, and is best understood at multiple levels of analysis (FIG. 1). Empirically, Gf is the best predictor of performance on diverse tasks, so much so that Gf and general intelligence (g, or general cognitive ability) might not be psychometrically distinct. [emphasis added] Conceptions of intelligence(s) and methods to measure them continue to evolve, but there is agreement on many key points; for example, that intelligence is not fixed, and that test bias does not explain group differences in test scores. Intelligence research is more advanced and less controversial than is widely realized, and permits some definitive conclusions about the biological bases of intelligence to be drawn."
Sternberg gets a citation here, from a pair of authors who are quite sympathetic to him, but I can't imagine he was happy about it; the consensus has passed his work by. --DAD T 06:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hard to comment without seeing the paper or the comment on Sternberg, but their stated assumption about what intelligence is appears to be the same assumption Gottfredson makes. I don't think Sternberg would have a problem with the article you cite, since they point out they are talking about psychometics. Sternberg's saying that that does not = intelligence.
I suppose it makes sense that a bunch of people who do a lot of analytical thinking and problem solving would define intelligence as a lot of analytic thinking and problem solving. See what I mean? I mean, I'm good at it, too, but I do not think that is necessarily an accurate or complete definition of "intelligence." More importantly, that's not just my opinion, it's that of several of the most renowned experts in the field.
While you are looking up impact factor (I don't have access to ISI and all that), can you see where Intelligence ranks?
PS: I loved how Murray explained in the Skeptic piece how Muhammad Ali could be so quick-witted and physically nimble yet have a near retarded IQ. That summed up the problem with IQ=intelligence perfectly for me. Jokestress 07:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jokestress, of course we know this interview. It is from the issue of Skeptical inquirer that I mentioned on the "Skeptics reading list" that I left on your talk page. By the way, the interviewer is Frank Miele, and if you want to read up on all of this, why not read his interview with Jensen [[15]], which appears as a book. The main thing to get from the Sternberg interview is that Sternberg does not contradict the claim that WSJ is the scientific consensus, and that he himself holds a minority viewpoint. Miele tries to corner him by giving him only two possible answers (1) and (2), but Sternberg evades and says that consensus is not important. (This may be true, of course. "They laughed at Galileo" etc. etc.) It's a very good interview, but it supports the view that WSJ is consensus. (It does not, of course, support the view that WSJ is the truth. That's not what we are discussing, neither is it relevant for a WP editor.) Arbor 08:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is from Skeptic Magazine. Skeptic is not Skeptical Inquirer. The former is published by The Skeptics Society and the latter is published by CSICOP. [Hitssquad]
My bad, thanks for correcting this. I got it right on Jokestress's talk page, at least! Arbor 09:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Murray on WSJ "consensus"

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

And for balance:

Skeptic: In your book you present a summary of the current evidence on I.Q. on pages 22 and 23. Snyderman and Rothman's on The I.Q. Controversy in 1991 surveyed expert in the field, and just yesterday the Wall Street Journal contained a 25-point statement by experts in intelligence. Based on those it seems your summary represents the consensus of experts in this field, even on the controversial issue of the involvement of genetics and the black-white difference in intelligence. As skeptics, we are skeptics of everything, including psychology. If we get this great a controversy over what looks like consensus, is psychology really a science in the same sense as physics?

Murray: I'm not comfortable with a blanket statement saying yes or no. But I think we can talk specifically about the basis for those statements in the Wall Street Journal and the book, which is certainly based on the kinds of methods that fall under the scientific method-- falsifiable hypotheses, the use of predictions, etc. A test is valid in so far as it predicts something of interest, or criteria measure, to use the jargon of the trade. More than most of the other social sciences, psychologists and psychometricians are prepared to have their results tested against classical statistical criterion of validity, reliability, and reproduceability.

Skeptic: One of the complaints about the Snyderman and Rothman survey, the Wall Street Journal survey, and your own survey of the literature, is that you are working in that standard psychometric paradigm, but that is yesterday's news. The real forefront is Sternberg's approach to practical intelligence and Gardner's seven intelligences. You are sticking with something that is a very small portion of the discussion, so naturally you are going to get concensus.

Murray: Let me make a couple of other points about intelligence. One, the general mental factor, g, is very robust. You can take all kinds of different ways of creating your factors, and you will always get g. It doesn't matter whether rotate the matrix orthogonally, or obliquely, or whatever else, you always get the same thing. The second major point is that when you try with factor analysis to produce a situation where you do not have a general mental factor g, guess what? All the factors are correlated. Which goes back to Spearman's initial insight, which is why are the different measures of mental ability so consistently correlated with each other? What's going on here? The answer is: there is an underlying general factor. That does not mean that it blocks out a whole territory of human talents or intelligence, and we say so in the book.

Gardner has made a variety of assertions about intelligence which, if true, are falsifiable. He is not only saying there are different talents, which Dick Herrnstein and I would agree with, he is also saying they are independent. With something like kinesthetic talent, which is quite physical, this is easy to say. It gets harder to say when he talks about interpersonal skills, versus verbal skills. If you are going to make that kind of statement, the next logical step is to come up with measures of these different talents and demonstrate that they are, in fact, independent.

Skeptic: So you are saying that some of these disagreements are empirically testable?

Murray: Yes, and Gardner has consistently been unwilling to subject his own work to that kind of empirical defense. He has stood apart from quantitative attempts to describe what he is doing and to enable other researchers to replicate it. Of all the different types of intelligence that Gardner wants to treat as co-equals, there is only one kind that will put you in the retarded class--namely the plain old fashion general mental ability. [16]

Jokestress 05:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sternberg's Triarchic Theory

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does Sternberg still publish on his triarchic theory? The latest paper I know of was this:

Nathan Brody, Construct validation of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test: Comment and reanalysis, Intelligence, Volume 31, Issue 4, July-August 2003, Pages 319-329.[17] This paper presents an alternative theoretical analysis of several analyses presented by Sternberg and his colleagues of studies designed to validate the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT). The paper contrasts a triarchic theory analysis of the data with one that emphasizes the relevance of g to an understanding of the results obtained by Sternberg and his colleagues. Three relationships are considered: (1) Relationships between triarchic abilities and other measures of intelligence; (2) Relationships between triarchic abilities and academic achievements; (3) Relationships among triarchic abilities. It is argued that the g theory is required to understand the relationships obtained by Sternberg and his colleagues.

I don't know the full literature that well. --Rikurzhen 06:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

An ISI search for publications including the term "triarchic" from Sternberg suggests that his most recent paper on it is a 2003 reply to Brody (the above paper) and to Gottfredson (who also published a critique, "Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence", Intelligence 31:343-397 (2003)). --DAD T 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

WSJ point by point

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Rikurzhen has asked several times for a point by point on the WSJ, so here goes:

Major issues:

  • IQ = intelligence
  • racial-ethnic groups are self-defined, yet genetic in origin
  • therefore, racial-ethnic group differences in intelligence are (partly) genetic in origin

Title: disputed

  • 1. disputed
  • 2. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 3. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 4. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 5. disputed
  • 6. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 7. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 8. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 9. disputed
  • 10. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 11. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 12. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 13. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 14. disputed (uses IQ and intelligence interchangeably)
  • 15. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 16. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 17. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 18. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 19. disputed
  • 20. disputed (after 5)
  • 21. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 22. this one is probably the best example of the inferences being made from the assumptions
  • 23. not disputed to my knowledge
  • 24. this is the second-best example
  • 25. this is the third-best example, an apologia for the policy prescriptions at the end of TBC, as well as her own activism in regards to policy.

The problem with this is, as with the name of this article or the sub-articles, as with the research being done in this field, assumption layered upon assumption leads to a skewed conclusion. It's the reason we need to revisit the assumptions in the first paragraph. Each assumption must be a simple declarative sentence. We start running into multiple fallacies as the assumptions pile up.

Having done this exercise, I would still very much prefer to focus on the APA, which is much more nuanced and acknowledges the debates about most of the things assumed here. Jokestress 07:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"therefore, racial-ethnic group differences in intelligence are (partly) genetic in origin": Therefore? As in, "logically, it follows that"? But that's exactly what the WSJ statement doesn't say, that no consensus statement has ever said. Where'd you get this? And what's with the "are (partly) genetic"? The statement says, "Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too." Turning "genetics could be involved" into "differences...are (partly) genetic" is unconscionable. Kindly fix these errors. Then we'll return to the mistaken assertion that assumptions lead to conclusions. --DAD T 07:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I got that from this title: Race_and_intelligence_(Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation). That is the inference being made by Gottfredson, too. Of course, if no one has ever said that, then I suppose we should change that title as I have suggested. I think "unconscionable" is a good word for it.
And (regarding below) I have a new rule that whenever I experience an edit conflict I leave for the day. Byee! Jokestress 07:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I'm apparently thick-headed here. Where in Race_and_intelligence_(Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation) does it say anything logically equivalent to "IQ measures intelligence, races are partly genetic, therefore racial disparity in IQ is partly genetic?" I can find sentences that say it could be so -- but this is not an inference or an assumption -- and I can find, for example, this statement in the WSJ editorial: "In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others." Your post attributes exactly this flawed assumption, disavowed in the WSJ statement, to...the WSJ statement (!). Let's be really exacting. Where is the inference being made? Kindly quote it, rather than providing a link, since I'm obviously too dense to find it on my own. --DAD T 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Let's try this:
  • 1. definition of intelligence
  • 2. this can be measured
  • 5. not culturally biased
  • 7. groups differ in intelligence
  • 8. blacks have lower, model minorities have higher
  • 19. group differences not converging
  • 21. differences partly genetic
  • 22. genetic differences in group
As a set of assumptions (using blacks as an example):
  • Intelligence = IQ
  • IQ can be measured
  • IQ is partly heritable
  • Blacks as a group have lower intelligence (= IQ)
  • Genetics could be involved in blacks' lower group intellignce
In a sentence, the takeaway is: Intelligence as we define it is measurable and largely heritable, and the reason blacks as a group are less intelligent is certainly not test bias, but may in fact be partially genetic.
Add the powerful persuader of the chart and make a subpage called Race_and_intelligence_(Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation), and voila! Instant inference. While that is a POV, I am not sure it is either "mainstream" or "consensus." The APA doesn't make these same inferences, and as you note, that difference needs to be explained to a casual reader to help teach the controversy. Jokestress 07:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
You lost me at Voila! You have yet to show that anyone makes an inference; you've shown that they could, but we don't live in theory-land. I maintain the opposite: mainstream scientists haven't made the voila! inference, and they condemn just that inference (see the statement from the WSJ editorial above). I hope all posters stop mischaracterizing the mainstream on this point. Quite separately, many scientists maintain that the evidence favors group IQ differences that are partly genetic, and others have pointed out that Niesser et al.'s statement was roundly criticized for sweeping this plurality POV under the table. Meanwhile, two other reads of the consensus (WSJ and S&R) demonstrate that joint environment/genetic causation is, in fact, the most widely accepted POV among intelligence researchers. Are you claiming to have evidence that it's not? I can't find anyplace that Sternberg says, "Most people don't believe this," just, "People shouldn't believe this." --DAD T 23:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Let's back up, then. Do you agree that the WSJ says this (in so many words): Intelligence as we define it is measurable and largely heritable, and the reason blacks as a group are less intelligent is certainly not test bias, but may in fact be partially genetic.
If you disagree, what part of that do you think it doesn't say? Jokestress 01:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Intelligence as we define it is measurable - APA, S&R and WSJ in one way or another say that most experts endorse the hierarchial view of intelligence with g at the vertex and the view that IQ tests are good measures of both g and the kind of behaviors called "intelligent"
  • largely heritable - APA, S&R and WSJ agree it is (APA spells out the increase from childhood to adulthood)
  • the reason blacks as a group are less intelligent is certainly not test bias - APA and WSJ agree, the average estimate from S&R is a small/non-zero amount of test bias (S&R note the literature disagrees with the average estimate of experts on this question)
  • but may in fact be partially genetic - WSJ says "Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too." Note that this is the only item in WSJ that isn't stated matter-of-fact but rather reports expert opinion (S&R is the obvious source); it seems to me that the "could" (in your version "may") language is intentionally softened so that you can count both the 45% "both genetic and environmental" along with the 24% "insufficient data to support any reasonable opinion" as saying that a genetic cause is possible; the APA report gives very little credence to the partly genetic hypothesis, mentions only "direct" evidence (most evidence is indirect), and essentially says there's no data for either interpretation but that they would prefer an entirely environmental one; but as the article says "The Janurary 1997 issue of American Psychologist included eleven critical responses to the APA report, most of which criticized the report's failure to examine all of the evidence for or against the partly-genetic interpretation of racial differences in IQ."
If I'm interpreting your summary correctly, then that's just what a consensus statement should say and that is the consensus of the consensus statements. --Rikurzhen 01:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
That is not an accurate summary of the APA, and now that DAD has found a "consensus" citation, I think we are now ready to compare APA & WSJ.

Jokestress, (discussions about "assumptions" aside) my impression of your writing on the talk page and the addition to the public controversy section is that you still don't understand what points are considered settled (by all by ~15% of experts). The ~15% number comes from the S&R survey data. About 15% of respondents picked multiple intelligences. About 15% picked "environment only" as their opinion about the heritability of racial group differences. I don't know what to call an 85-15 split. "Majority" is under-reporting. "Mainstream" sounds sensible to me, and at least that's a published suggestion for what to call it. (Issues of what "consensus" means in relation to a "consensus statement" can be discussed later.) Also, note my explanations of where there is and is not controversy about the WSJ items you claim are disputed and the extent of the dispute (below). It's important that we nail down for the reader precisely what is and is not controversial and the extent of expert disagreement where quantifable. Conflating different issues where there is disagreement (e.g., the definition of intelligence and heritability of group differences in IQ are logically separate) and not indicating what is the "majority"/"mainstream"/"whatever" view is not acceptable wrt NPOV. --Rikurzhen 19:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

My impression of your writing is that you still don't understand the difference between a majority and a pluralty. Majority is absolutely over-reporting. Consensus is absolutely over-reporting. S&R indicates a plurality but not a majority, and it is certainly not "settled" because less than half agree on something. I can make a chart of S&R or cite a definition for majority if you want. I am happy to stay on WSJ until this is hashed out. Jokestress 20:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
If that's your view, then most likely you are misunderstanding what the WSJ statement says. (Or I and seemingly the rest of us are.) Check what's I've written so. More later... --Rikurzhen 20:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
What DAD said, plus:
  • 1. g theory is the predominant view of intelligence. in the 1984 S&R survey only 13% agree with Gardern/Sternberg
  • 5. not disputed by the APA report
  • 9. predictive validity of IQ tests is a simple matter of fact
  • 14. (uses IQ and intelligence interchangeably) - a generally safe direction of inference is IQ -> intelligence (but not always, g -> intelligence is better); heritability of IQ is not disputed
  • 19. disputed by Neisser and colleagues -- we cover the dispute in detail, but the description recognizes their claims; comes down to g again
  • 20. not disputed, merely a matter of fact about scores; I read similar claims in the NY Times a month or so ago when the latest NAEP data was released
  • 22. "Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too." is a noncontroversial reading of the S&R survey data
  • 24. a simple matter of fact, just do a regression of IQ on SES variables; APA report concurs
  • 25. "They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means." Disputed?
--Rikurzhen 07:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have a few minutes to start a reply... The issue of mentioning the APA, WSJ, and S&R reports was originally in the context of telling the reader that some people have fundamental objections to R&I research results, but that these objections do not reflect the views of a large majority of experts. The text as it was a few weeks ago:

Some researchers have argued that race and intelligence research is fundamentally flawed. Stephen Jay Gould expressed this view in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. Tate & Audette (2001) argue that issues of "race" and "intelligence" are pseudo-questions because both concepts are arbitrary social constructions. Similarly, in a 2005 review paper Sternberg and colleagues question the basis of race and intelligence research[1]: [paragraph] In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists working on intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. [paragraph] These views contrast with those expressed in "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,"[2] a report from the American Psychological Association, and "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[3], a statement signed by fifty-two professors, including researchers in the study of intelligence and related fields, meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence".

Note that this is describing objections that in theory come before any discussion about data or interpretations of data that are presented in the article. So this is not about the split in expert opinion about the heritability of between group differences. (At least as I intended to write segment.) ... more later ... Rikurzhen


Gottfredson: WSJ editorial not paid

Latest comment: 20 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Just heard back from Linda Gottfredson about the WSJ. I also asked if she tried to contact any of the 31 non-responders after the WSJ to see what their opinions were. Her note is below.

It most certainly was not a paid advertisement. Note also that the title did not include the word "race" (the piece was much broader than that).

As noted in Table 1 of the Intelligence article, the 31 individuals I could not LOCATE by the deadline. I telephoned all non-responders I could locate--they were usually persons who did not want to sign. They (and their reasons) are included in the stats reported in that article.

The article in Intelligence is not a follow-up, but the identical statement accompanied by the history for it. (There was a long lag time in publishing it in Intelligence because we were waiting for the other articles to come in for the special issue.) The 25-item statement has been reprinted numerous times--one place, if I recall correctly, is in Oxford's Intelligence: A very short introduction by Ian Deary.

I would be happy to send you the entire 1997 special issue ("Intelligence and Social Policy"), if you like. Half of the six major articles in the special issue have won research awards.

I took her up on the offer for the Intelligence and Social Policy. Dettman's intro is here.

Jokestress 21:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Cool, but read the Hawking example here WP:NOR#Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Rikurzhen 22:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
The assertion that it was an ad and not an editorial came from me and me alone. Since my assertion is not verifiable, there is no need to verify that it is not true. hitssquad 03:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
If true, it would be very relevant. As I said, it kind of looked like an ad in its original form, though it is listed on the WSJ archive. It is certainly fine to raise the issue and discuss it here, as verifiability issues and questions like that frequently get hashed out on Talk pages. It was certainly worth a follow-up, and I would not have put it on the entry unless it had been verified. Jokestress 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The No Original Research problem remains. Please see my comment about it, it's right before section 40. You cannot introduce original arguments or viewpoints on WP, and until you attribute it to somebody, your argument against the validity of a mainstream statement based on the number of signees vs non-signees is your own. (It's easy to fix, just attribute it to somebody.) You are allowed to report the data, but you are not allowed to call it an "objection" (Linda G certainly doesn't think her data discredits the validity, quite on the contrary.) Arbor 11:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Gottfredson reports the number of non-signers, which taken with the Sternberg comment above is enough to help a reader understand if the editorial is "consensus" or mainstream. The non-signers are a primary source; a fact. I believe "consensus" was introduced by editors here. I have not seen Gottfredson characterize this as a consensus statement, and the non-signers and comments by Sternberg I cited above belie that characterization. We need a citation characterizing this as a "consensus statement." Jokestress 15:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
No, Sternberg's writing does not belie the characterization of WSJ as consensus; it's consistent with it. Read his interview again. Sternberg's views reflect a minority view; he never claims to be in the majority. He claims the consensus is not Herrnstein and Murray's (but that's not at issue), and his opinion on what the consensus is hardly seems comparable to a signed statement or a survey. Given the opportunity, Sternberg even rails against people who think majorities are important. We all understand his views; what evidence do you have that they're mainstream/consensus/majority (all of which I am happy to interchange should one or the other become taboo)? --DAD T 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Cite a publication that calls WSJ a "consensus," and we can move forward. WSJ is considered an alternative to APA that differs in purpose, emphasis, and degree of equivocation from the APA statement. A unanimous statement refined for six months by 11 experts on behalf of 150,000 APA members might be more of a consensus than something one expert wrote in two weeks and got signed by about half those solicited. Jokestress 01:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Detterman's article in Intelligence (from the link you provided): "Compare this consensus with the one that followed by the APA in 1995 Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns..." --DAD T 03:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
In the Deary book referred to by Gottfredson (Amazon, Search Inside the Book): "Two documents recording agreement among researchers in the field about the core aspects of human intelligence (...) are also worth looking at. The first was, rather astonishingly, a full-page declaration in the Wall Street Journal..." Also, from Lubinski et al., J. Appl. Psych. 86(4):718-729, "...the mainstream scientific view outlined by Gottfredson (1997a)..." (referring to the WSJ reprint in Intelligence). We have "agreement among researchers" and "mainstream scientific view"; I'm fairly sure "consensus" was used because it's short and adjectival. --DAD T 06:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Cool. That works for me. I think we should cite Detterman, too, since that is also an excellent summary of another important resource. In fact, now that we can move forward from "consensus," let's compare the APA and WSJ as Detterman suggests and how it differs in purpose, emphasis, and degree of equivocation from WSJ. Jokestress 07:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'll be away from WP (conference) till midweek but look forward to joining the discussion. --DAD T 15:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I sincerely doubt, on second reading, that the link you provided was written by Detterman. Reads more like an amateur neo-eugenicist tract to me. The other references I provided appear reliable. --DAD T 16:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think you may be right. It is definitely slanted a little, and the exclamation points suggest the sort of breathless excitement of an amateur neoeugenicist. My bad for introducing this without checking more carefully. Gottfredson said she would send the issue edited by Detterman, so we will be able to check the published source directly. I'll look into the Deary you cite above while you are away. Jokestress 16:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Detterman's intro from an online PDF: Editor’s Note This special issue of Intelligence was edited by Linda S. Gottfredson. The articles were invited but were put through the peer review process. The issue was planned as an informative extension of the collective statement, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” which was published in the Wall Street Journal in December 1994, and which is reprinted here as an editorial. I asked Dr. Gottfredson to guest edit this special issue because of her role in organizing the “Mainstream” statement. That statement was designed to be a clear explication of what we in the field regarded as well-known despite popular opinion to the contrary. The statement was effective and had some impact on popular opinion. I thought, however, that it should be followed by a more detailed account that would provide a source of references for its assertions. Dr. Gottfredson agreed and took on the editing of this issue. She has done an excellent job. The issue has developed into more than just an elaboration of the “Mainstream” statement. With an impressive panel of authors, it has extended the boundaries of the field of intelligence, showing more compellingly than ever how intelligence affects the lives of individuals and societies. Even those who know the field well will find much of interest. Most readers of Intelligence are familiar with the work of Linda Gottfredson. I think her greatest contribution has been showing the relevance of basic research on individual differences to the concerns of applied psychologists and policy makers. She has been a tireless commentator on issues of test use and test fairness. Dr. Gottfredson is currently professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware and co-director of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society. She obtained her doctoral degree from Johns Hopkins University in sociology and her bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of California at Berkeley. Guest editing is not new to her. She edited two special issues of the Journal of Vocational Behavior which considered the relationship of intelligence to employment testing and to fair testing practice. I regard them, like the current issue, as required reading for anyone who is interested in intelligence and its implications for social policy. -Douglas K. Detterman

I rather like "collective statement." That seems the most accurate characterization of WSJ so far. Jokestress 17:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I suppose it depends on the context of the point being made. On a related note: Based on feedback from the FAC, details of non-"expert" opinion is the weak point of this article. I've summarized the thesis of the S&R (1988) book, and added a summary of views on test bias from the 60s and 70s. I'm not sure how helpful it would be to describe older debates on other issues that are less direclty related to R&I. So... I'm running out of ideas. Maybe I'll take another trip to the library this weekend. Later --Rikurzhen 17:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Summary style - Race and intelligence controversy

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The Race and intelligence controversy article is now large enough (although not nearly complete) that we should try to a summary style transition on that section of the main article. Ideally, we're looking for three paragraphs to summarize the major points (major ideas, concepts, etc.) with the minimum level of detail necessary. At the same time, we should try to get the Race and intelligence controversy article up to a higher standard. For me, this task seems harder than the research oriented summary sections because the topic is much more open ended. Suggestions? Anyone going to give it a try? --Rikurzhen 20:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me how the controversy can be separated from the research-- many experts in one or both fields argue that the research itself IS the controversy. While I agree that explaining the controversy will require a full article, I would argue that the research is in fact the ancillary article. It certainly is if you compare the number of articles containing primary data to the number of articles discussing and analyzing the controversy. Jokestress 22:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think there is a problem of definitions here. A while ago, the editors voted to adopt Wikipedia:Summary style for this topic. "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. Thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book-length." [At the time we really were approaching a book length article.) "Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles." The language "main article" and "sub-article" relates to "main points" and "sub-topics", respectively. Also, by "article", I mean a Wikipedia article, not outside publications. The article size limits I mentioned relates to this: "Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span - 20 minutes." The public controversy section alone is approaching that size. The "research oriented summary sections" I metioned are Race and intelligence (Average gaps among races) and Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation). When you write a summary section it should be at most 3 paragraphs. That's why the corresponding sub-sections of the Race and intelligence article are only 3 paragraphs long. So when I say we should do summary style on the public controversy section, I mean we should move the current text to Race and intelligence controversy (I've already done that) and replace the text in this article with a 3 paragraph summary. So, the term "main article" is not a value judgement about the relative worth of "race and intelligence" versus "race and intelligence controversy", but rather a statement about which article contains the summary section w/ {{main}} tag and which is being summarized. In theory, two articles could both be main and sub-articles to one another. IQ and intelligence (trait) are moving in that direction. --Rikurzhen 02:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I say "main article" because there is one that is straight up "race and intelligence," and the "subarticles" as it stands have a parenthetical after them. The parentheticals themselves are totally POV right now. That's one of several POV issues I have with how this whole topic is being organized. A specific POV is promulgated through the article titles themselves. I don't have a completely forumulated answer on how to resolve this, but I am hoping we can figure out a NPOV way of organizing this. I have been looking at other "__ and __" articles here to see what the precedent is, but it seems like we are setting a lot of interesting precedents in this series of articles (like Arbor's supercool footnoting system). I agree that the direction of intelligence and IQ are very good, but this is a little different because of the double controversy. Jokestress 02:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
So... you're on-board with trying to write a 3 paragraph summary style section for the controversy material? If not, this is something we need work out -- it goes to the "crux of the npov" issue stuff we never quite resolved. If you'd like to discuss the other things you mentioned, let's do that in a separate thread if possible. --Rikurzhen 02:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Summaries are a good exercise. If things change around, we can always use the three-paragraph summary at the top of the "main" article. Jokestress 02:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Jokestress: That's one of several POV issues I have with how this whole topic is being organized. If it makes you happy, note that Race and intelligence is an article in the category Category:Race and intelligence controversy. By the way, I hope by now we have convinced you that most of the editors are doing a thorough job at presenting a complex issue in way that follows both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Many, many other editors have pointed to our little endeavour as exemplary work, especially in the NPOV department. So there is clearly a large group of people who think what we do is very, very NPOV, and there is no reason to assume that these people are lying or malicious. In that light, might I suggest you try to mellow you statements like "totally POV"? Clearly not everybody agrees (for example, I think its among the 10 most NPOV articles I've seen on WP), and only the Sith deal in absolutes, so maybe—just for politeness' sake—you could try to acknowledge the hard work that is going on here by using a more conciliatory tone when you describe your views on the NPOVness of this article and related material? As I said, I think it's the very model of NPOV (but I don't smear it in your face all the time). Arbor 09:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
This article is a long way from NPOV, and like the WSJ, the POV is built into the very structure of the presentation, from the titles down. I have ackowledged all the good work going on here, but the editors who created this have done so without much input from people who see this article as systematically structured to favor a specific POV. At least two editors have suggested that they think critical disputes about this topic are "settled" issues. Just about every sentence and every visual representation is weighted to favor a POV interpretation of the data. Criticisms are met with extensive countercriticisms. This is set up with the false dichotomy as if the debate is environment only or partially genetic, when many experts believe either the question itself is bogus, or that no meaningful interpretation can be made based on the available evidence.
I don't think anyone is lying or malicious. I also don't care who is "right" in this matter. My main reason for getting involved is that I am aware of the ways in which materials like this are subject to confirmation bias. I am most concerned that what is being presented as scientific consensus is in fact consensus science. These are pervasive and insidious problems throughout this entire series of articles. One need only look at the references pages to see how deeply off-balance this series of articles is. I assume good faith with the editors who have gotten this to this point, but these articles suffer from systemic bias. The titles are totally POV. There's really no other way to say it. That is not supposed to be a personal affront to you or the other editors, but as someone well-versed in the use of language to make a persuasive argument, I know when I am reading something POV. As I said, at the rate we are going, I anticipate taking about 5 or 6 months minimum to get this to NPOV. Jokestress 17:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
See, the charge of "systemic bias" I completely understand, and I would never counter such a charge. This article very much is an example of systemic bias. As is the Evolution article, for that matter. That charge is warranted. However, "systemic bias" is very much a result of WP's NPOV policy. It suffers from "systemic bias" because it is NPOV. Just like the Evolution article. But you cannot criticise an article on WP for conforming to one of WP's pillars of foundation. You can criticise WP's foundation, or you can join the noble efforts of the Countering Systemic Bias movement. But you cannot call an article POV just because it is an example of systemic bias. (Neither do I believe it is a valid vote against Featured standard, even though one of the editors used that argument.) Systemic bias is an observed and well known feature of WP's policies. It is not a valid reason for opposing an individual article. By the way, if you want an article whose "titles are totally POV", why not start with Scientific racism, at least smack an NPOV label on it? (I jest, of course. It's a good article. I like the systemic bias of WP, because it gives me good, readable, trustworthy articles like Race and intelligence, Evolution, or Scientific racism.) Arbor 17:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps the point is better made if I say this article suffers from cognitive bias and confirmation bias that make it non-NPOV. This article is readable, but it is certainly not trustworthy in relationship to NPOV. Jokestress 18:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Could we move the controversy section from the Race and intelligence to Race and intelligence controversy and then remove it from here? (Instead, we will just have a one-line link.) Currently we have more or less the same text in two places, and edits are made to the same paragraphs but not coördinated. If and when Race and intelligence controversy stabilises we can write a three paragraph summary for Race and intelligence. Arbor 06:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Crap, that's my fault. I didn't realize people were bothering with Race and intelligence controversy yet. Okay, let's move the material there. --Rikurzhen 07:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I move stuff over and tried to reconcile the version differences. Still more to do on that front. --Rikurzhen 07:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

list of interpretations

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

From my reading of it, the third item in this list doesn't fit with the way the list is introduced:

The contemporary scholarly debate about race and intelligence involves both the relatively uncontroversial experimental results that indicate that average IQ test scores vary among racial groups, and the relatively more controversial interpretations of these IQ differences. In general, contemporary interpretations of the "IQ gap" can be divided into three broad categories:

  1. "culture-only" or "environment-only" interpretations that posit only non-genetic causes (e.g., socioeconomic inequality or minority culture membership) that differentially affect racial groups; and
  2. "partly genetic" interpretations that posit an IQ gap between racial groups caused by approximately the same matrix of genetic and environmental forces that cause IQ differences among individuals of the same race.
  3. "insufficient data": no meaningful interpretation can be made based on available evidence.

The problem seems to be that #3 isn't an interpretation, but rather the lack of an interpretation or the inability to empirically distinguish between alternatives #1 and #2. I've been brainstorming for a simple fix, but I can't think of one. The best alternative I can think of is to remove #3 from the list and add a follow up sentence saying something like "a large minority think there is insufficient data and no meaningful interpretation can be made based on available evidence". This isn't as nice because more experts chose #3 than #1 in the S&R survey. --Rikurzhen 02:54, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Removing #3 sets up the false dichotomy that's the problem with this whole series. One of the major arguments is that the argument about whether it's #1 or #2 is based on too many tendentious assumptions to be considered science. Rather than removing the second most common answer, perhaps it's better to resturcture the summary and series to present that POV for what it is: a significant POV, more common than the straw man of environment only. Jokestress 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we want to remove #3. (Adding that was a good edit, by the way.) The problem is that "no interpretation" is not an interpretation (just like "no preference" isn't a favourite colour), and the first paragraph claims that it lists the main interpretations. How about this much shorter suggestion

The contemporary scholarly debate about race and intelligence is concerned with how the intelligence gap should be interpreted:

  1. blabla

Of course, "is concerned with" is clumsy. All you native speakers can do better: "focusses on", or just "asks"? Arbor 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was the concern I was getting at. Something like that is what I was looking for, but getting it phrased just right has eluded me. --Rikurzhen 19:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
How about this:
The contemporary scholarly debate about race and intelligence elicits several viewpoints about experimental results that indicate that average IQ test scores vary among racial and ethnic groups, and how those results can be interpreted. The three most prominent viewpoints are:
  1. "culture-only" or "environment-only" interpretations that posit only non-genetic causes (e.g., socioeconomic inequality or minority culture membership) that differentially affect racial groups; and
  2. "partly genetic" interpretations that posit an IQ gap between racial groups caused by approximately the same matrix of genetic and environmental forces that cause IQ differences among individuals of the same race.
  3. "insufficient data": no meaningful interpretation can be made based on available evidence.
Once we get that figured out, let's get the red link out of #1. Jokestress 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Partly genetic" should probably be listed before "culture-only," reflecting its status as the interpretation favoured by the majority of experts. --Nectarflowed T 04:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

false dichotomy

Latest comment: 20 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Jokestress, you have made an argument above that I think needs to be tackled. Seemingly talking about the question of the role of genes in causing between group differences in mean IQ, you charge that: This is set up with the false dichotomy as if the debate is environment only or partially genetic. Later you claim that it's the false dichotomy that's the problem with this whole series. You claim that many experts believe either [1] the question itself is bogus, or [2] that no meaningful interpretation can be made based on the available evidence. I understand where [2] comes from: the S&R(1987) survey data shows that 24%/86%=28% of respondents claimed that "The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion". However, [1] was not an option for that question. It is not obvious to me that any appreciable number of experts believe that the question itself is bogus. Can you support this claim with citations? Related to this. You claim that One of the major arguments is that the argument about whether it's #1 or #2 is based on too many tendentious assumptions to be considered science. This sound like a specific form of the question itself is bogus. The part about assumptions (rather than data or interpretations) seems especially foreign to me: I don't believe this is a signficiant (in numbers) view. Again, can you show citations that this is a major argument? You also say, environment only is a straw man. That implies that environment only is a position that people don't really take. Genetics only really is a straw man used against the partly genetic view, but environment only is a serious view seemingly endorsed by many prominent writers on this topic. Lastly, I'd like some clarification on what you mean by these claims:

  • At least two editors have suggested that they think critical disputes about this topic are "settled" issues.
  • Just about every sentence and every visual representation is weighted to favor a POV interpretation of the data.
  • Criticisms are met with extensive countercriticisms.

--Rikurzhen 20:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

OK, last one today. AAA is representative of the POV that this research is scientifically misoncieved and politically suspect. Environment only is the third most popular position people take according to a document frequently cited here. A straw man argument sidesteps the real issue to fight a less important issue that's easier to attack (environment only). Look back through this voluminous talk page for the word "settled" to find editors trying to rush this along by claiming this or that is settled. We will go through every sentence and every visual representation over the next few months to hash out what are POV issues in each case. Probably each word at the rate we are going. Any view critical of the POV expressed in the article gets counterclaims covered extensively, but those were often followed with rejoinders, too. The article reflects what happens on this talk page, where I bring up a point and have to do four times as much writing just to keep up with the other editors' objections. But that's OK, I have patience. Jokestress 20:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
On the main point : SJ Gould's MMoM is representative of the view that "this research is scientifically misoncieved and politically suspect". Analogously, a June editorial in the WSJ [18] is representative of the view that "the scientific case ... [human caused global warming] ... looks weaker all the time". However, that doesn't make it the case than many experts believe this way. The AAA statement and Gould's writings have no more claim to be expert (or representative of expert views) than I would if I wrote a newspaper editorial on this subject. Having a PhD or even being a world famous evolutionary scientist doesn't (on its own) make you an expert on topics outside of your field. This kind of discrimination between expert and non-expert views is crucial to WP:NPOV as evidenced by the considerable time discussing how to handle cases where these views differ (evolution is the case study in the NPOV page).
On environment only and straw men : claiming "that no meaningful interpretation can be made based on the available evidence" is not a position that is widely published on (negative results and negative interpretations are often not published) and so the available literature necessarily focuses on the two prominent hypotheses (being undecided is not a hypothesis): partly-genetic or environment-only. You seem to be the source of the claim that environment only is a straw man, and for that reason alone we cannot act on that claim. Additionally, I think it's a ridicuous claim given the number of public intellectuals who have claimed to hold this view (e.g. in the last few years John Ogbu, Thernstrom and Thernstrom, etc.).
"settled" : If you think the central role of g in the contemporary expert understanding of intelligence isn't settled, or that the issue of test bias isn't settled, I'd like to see references to support that claim.
Any view critical of the POV expressed in the article gets counterclaims covered extensively, but those were often followed with rejoinders, too. - I don't follow. If you mean claims like Arthur Jensen has the same goals as Hitler, then you can understand that some rejoinder is needed for balance. (BTW, in that case I wrote both the claim and the rejoinder.) If you have specific examples you want to address in the future, of course we'll talk about it.
--Rikurzhen 20:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Rikurzhen sez: Having a PhD or even being a world famous evolutionary scientist doesn't (on its own) make you an expert on topics outside of your field. Then I guess we'd better dismiss The Bell Curve. It is not a scientific work. It was not written by experts, and it has a specific political agenda. Scientists first publish their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not in books written for the general reader who may not have the technical background needed to detect flaws in data and misinterpretations of data analyses. It is inappropriate for a scientist to do otherwise. I am slowly adding references to this, to intelligence, and to race until this more accurately reflects expert opinion. "Expert" doesn't just mean the experts who agree with one POV. It means all the experts in all the fields. That is what NPOV means. Jokestress 10:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Richard Herrnstein, psychologist, wrote for decades on IQ. It would be inapporpriate to call anyone with a PhD who cares to write about anything an expert on that topic. That's not how the survey of expert opinion chose experts to survey. We must distinguish between the views of people whose work would give them knowledge of this subject and those who comment on it from outside. --Rikurzhen 11:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Who are these alleged outsiders who are commenting? Can you name a few? Anthropologists? Evolutionary biologists? People from gnxp? Anyone with expert knowledge of "race," and anyone with expert knowledge of "intelligence" has something valuable to say. Further, anyone who has expertise on the history and philosophy of science has something valuable to say. This is a multidisciplinary issue. Your attempt to make an inside/outside distinction seems tenuous at best. Can you elaborate on who is "expert" and who is "outside" according to your assertion? Names or a list of disciplines would be ideal. Jokestress 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Like any definition there are boundary issues. The relatively strict criteria S&R(1987) used to select experts to poll worked to significantly enrich for people who felt knowledgable enough to answer their survey questions. You're request for a quantum level distinction is avoiding my point. My point was that people who work with IQ and publish on these issues are the kind of experts whose opinions can be trusted to be informed. The brief position statement from the AAA does not warrant the unqualified label "expert" in the same context as the APA's concensus statement; failing to draw a distinction between them is inappropriate. Likewise, the opinions of SJ Gould cannot be regarded as "expert" on this topic, even though he was an expert on many things. The AAA and Gould do/did not do research on the question of a genetic contribution to group differences in IQ in any appreciable sense. They're opinions may be valuable, they may be insightful, they may be 100% correct, but they are not "expert" in the normal sense of the word. If you'd like an operational definition, consider the question: if the NSF or AAAS were to convene a task force to write a new concensus statement, what kind of person would they select, what organizations would be represented? The AAA would not be an obvious pick. --Rikurzhen 17:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
These "boundary issues" get to the crux of the NPOV issue. This article in its current iteration seems to make an arbitrary heirarchical distinction between science and non-science, when this is a multidsciplinary issue. The AAAS or NSF aren't more legitimate than the AAA in this field. That's just scientism, and that is most definitely POV. Jokestress 18:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to interpret your comment charitably, but I can't figure it out. AAA (American Anthropological Association), AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), NSF (National Science Foundation), APA (American Psychological Association), etc are all organizations of scientists. SJ Gould was a scientist. I'm saying that you need to be careful with who you call an "expert" because it matters as to what they're an expert in. My common sense understanding of the term is someone who has working knowledge of a subject at a deep level (i.e. a subject-area expert). But let's get back on point. My main concern was about the notion of a "false dichotomy" and that "many experts believe either the question itself is bogus". I don't see the literature supporting those claims. Thus, we shouldn't edit the article on that basis. --Rikurzhen 19:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the literature supporting those claims. The literature on "race" is full of these claims. The literature on "intelligence" is full of these claims. I will be adding them to those articles as we go. This article attempts to set all that aside, when making those assumptions is a major issue in this controversy. There is a significant body of work saying race is biologically meaningless, a significant body of work saying "intelligence" cannot be measured with available psychometrics or even consistently defined, and a significant body of work exposing the problems of creating knowledge based on assumptions about "race" and "intelligence." While the most succinct, the AAA collective statement is anything but an outlier. They are experts in this area, like it or not. As I have said, one POV has jumped way out front on this. I am methodically laying the groundwork for all the revision that needs to be done to make this NPOV. Just today I added folkbiology and ethnobiology because there weren't even WP entries yet. That's how out of balance this topic is.
I suggest we hold off on "expert" until we resolve this "consensus" issue. I am still recommending "collective" as the best word to describe AAA, APA and WSJ most accurately. Jokestress 19:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Those are the claims you were making. What literature supports your claim about a false dichotomy? What literature supports the claim that many experts on R&I believe the question is bogus? Certainly there is a tremendous literature from public intellectuals who are not themselves experts in this field making claims that the research is bogus. But that's not what you were claiming. What, for example, did you mean by One of the major arguments is that the argument about whether it's #1 or #2 is based on too many tendentious assumptions to be considered science? Who can we attribute that belief to? If you think I misunderstand you or you think that you were imprecise, then let's clear up exactly what you mean. --Rikurzhen 21:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The very definition of a false dichotomy is to present the argument as "culture only" or "partially genetic." I don't think I need to show a source. It's a fact. Those are not the only two interpretive possibilities, and they are not even the two most widely held views. This entire article is structured around a fallacy of an excluded middle if we don't acknowledge this significant POV that the knowledge produced cannot answer the questions posed. As I said, I am going to add lots of stuff to race and intelligence to help readers understand that the foundations for all these findings and assertions are rather shaky and subject to interpretation. Those articles are fairly NPOV (not bad enough to warrant a tag), but this one has a number or serious issues. It's just going to take time. I might even make a Venn diagram tomorrow to explain if you think it will help. Personally, I'd rather deal with these point-by-point matters in the body of the text than cite sources for my talk page comments. If you feel like something is introduced into the article without a source, that's another matter. If you want to do quantum level, then you can answer my question posed earlier about who you consider "experts." Or better yet, you can cite a published source for "consensus." Jokestress 00:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Definitions are not facts. Definitions are synthetic propositions that depend on social convention to give them meaning. For example, "A cow is a blurgh" has no basis in social convention and is thus, in some sense, false. But if some people start using the word "Blurgh" to talk about cows, you're starting to get linguistic agreement. The point here is that for you to say that "X means Y" is not enough. If you want to make a claim that one word means something else you need to either admit that you're restricting this definition to a particular context for the sake of discussion, or you have to show some basis is linguistic convention, which needs a source. --malathion talk 02:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Jokestress, I think I might understand what you're trying to say. Let me see if I can summarize. You are claiming that in the "Culture-only or partially genetic explanation?" section, which discusses causal theories for group differences in g, it is inappropriate examine only the environment only and partly genetic hypotheses because this ignores what you consider to be two other views: [1] the question itself is bogus, or [2] that no meaningful interpretation can be made based on the available evidence. You would cite as examples of (2) the "The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion" response in the S&R(1987) survey and you would cite as evidence of (1) the AAA statement. Is that what you are saying? The short answer is that would be inappropriate. The long answer... First, the opinion that all race and intelligence research is bogus should be in this article. It has been since the beginning, and when I found the Sternberg (2005) paper, I added it prominently. Second, experts: Broadly, psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, behavior geneticists, and education-specialists are the people likely to have expertise in this subject area. This is not to say that individuals in other fields might not also be experts. Sternberg is clearly a subject area expert. The members of the AAA do not obviously have comparable expertise. Not to say that the AAA statement should not be in this article, but rather that it should not be represented as "expert" and equally authoritative as the APA and WSJ statements. Consider a hypothetical example: if the AAA released a statement denouncing medical research that includes race, it would be noteworthy in a race and medicine article but it would be wrong to call them "experts" on par with a statement from the AMA. Third, NPOV makes it very clear that (the text of) articles should discriminate between majority and minority views and that when a topic leads to expansive articles or a series of article it is appropriate to make necessary assumptions. The point about discriminating between views means that the controversy section should make it clear who believes what. This includes discriminating between the views of subject area experts versus those of other intellectuals. The use of article structure to partition specific subtopics is also a necessary part of that discrimination. The point about making necessary assumptions follows from there. We should discuss the claim that the research is bogus as much as needed to describe views on that topic. But when we move on to discussing other sub-topics, it is not necessary to mention the "bogus" view again each time. The bogus versus non-bogus question must be discriminated from the other questions encompassed by this topic. One of those questions is, of course, the cause of group differences. The majority and minority hypotheses are that the cause is partly-genetic or environment only. (Entirely genetic is a fringe view with no prominent scholarly adherents.) The "data is insufficient" view is not a hypothesis, but the inability to choose between these two hypotheses. If we could find a prominent published adherent of this view, we could mention him/her, but I know of none. (Obviously, being undecided is an alternative to any scientific question and we have documentation that some are undecided on this question despite feeling as if they are informed.) But "bogus" is not an alternative to this question. It is an answer to a much broader question. Once we discuss that question, we can make the necessary assumption that the research isn't bogus so that we can discuss the views of those who think it isn't bogus on the various sub-topics found in this article. Sorry for going so long, I hope I was clear. --Rikurzhen 02:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


That is the gist of the point I am making. It comes down to a couple of things. The majority of experts on "race" believe it is biologically meaningless. Taking your analogy that the AMA is more "expert" on race and medicine is another expression of the same problem. The "intelligence" people are not more "expert" than the "race" people. This is a multidisciplinary issue which requires the sorts of synthesis of disciplines happening in academia today. This article takes the tone that "intelligence" is more important than "race" in this discussion. That reflects the bias of the editors.


Rather than deal with reverts and edit wars in this section, I am going to spend some time on race and intelligence base articles for a bit as groundwork for the major POV reworking this article needs. I have a few dozen references to add. In the meantime, maybe we can figure out how we are handling additional information at the bottom of the R&I page. Jokestress 06:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
When you say "yes", are you saying that you understand my point about NPOV: discrimination of sub-topics and making necessary assumptions? If you are, then are you also agreeing that this dissolves the "false dichotomy"? Because then I am left not know what "the major POV reworking this article needs". If I understood it, and we agreed on what the problem was, I could help you fix it.
To the second issue: what is an anthropologist and what do they really say? Anthropologists and/or evolutionary biologists are experts on race in the sense of questions like "what is race?" The "biologically meaningless" bit is frequently misinterpreted. They are saying that race as a taxonomic category (like species) does not apply to humans. They are not saying that self-identified race has no biological or genetic correlates. Indeed, researchers of this view are saying that what does exist are breeding populations. Another concept along this vein is the idea that variation is clinal -- this goes to the question of race as taxonomy. However, none of this has anything to do with what's meant by "race" in contemporary research on "intelligence". All agree that self-identified races are not distinct, but are in fact arbitrary in their number, and are laden with social/cultural values, and yet the properties that Westerners use to distinguish "races" are largely phenotypic, and heritable and thus have a genetic underpinning. For example, traits like skin color. But also a long list of other physical and biochemical traits. All agree that individuals labeled by self-identified race (i.e. populations) statistically cluster at the level of genotype (e.g. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's work and Tang et al 2005) because self-identifed race is consonant with ancestry: people of the same self-identified race share more recent ancestors than two people of different self-identified races; hence "breeding populations". The point where some fuss is made is the assertion by R&I researchers that the brain is just as susceptible to the historical emergence of variation between groups as the physcial and metabolic traits that all parties recognize. (Half of all human genes are expressed in the brain, and so the idea that evolution left these genes untouched is implausible.) If there's any point where real contention is sometimes made, it is there. But that concept, the genes+environment -> brain -> behavior model, is outside the purvue of anthropology and clearly a matter of psychology and behavior genetics. The AAA may have put up a fuss, but they were attacking a straw man; no R&I research claims that "races" are distinct taxon, nor is it even obvious that it would matter for their research either way.
maybe we can figure out how we are handling additional information at the bottom of the R&I page. hmm? --Rikurzhen 07:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
See "Further reading" below. Jokestress 00:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Outdenting, merely for typographical reasons...Jokestress,

  1. about inserting additional references: please don't do that. Instead, read them and present their viewpoints in the article body text. If you think a point of view is mis- or underrepresented, then please fix it. Don't just provide pointers. You ought to trust us that we have indeed read a fair amount of the work you are alluding to. (Remember that my second message to you on your talk page is such a reading list along those lines, which I encouraged you digest and summarise for these articles.) Also please believe us that we are doing an honest job of trying to present those viewpoints. As you obviously think we failed in doing so, please do better: read, digest, write (from your other contributions I can see that you have a talent for this—you could help the R&I article immensely if you applied you skills to improving the presentation of the viewpoint that you feel are begin short-changed here). But don't just presume to educate us by giving us expanded reading lists. Wikipedia is not a list of references, and it has no mechanisms to arbitrate "further reading" suggestions. I fear you are wasting valuable energy.
  2. Personally, I disagree with your denunciation of expertise, but I can see that it is compatible with NPOV. By analogy, biologists are no more experts on the origin of species then are theologians, so if we present issues where these two groups of academics disagree, we shouldn't call one of them experts. (As I said, I disagree. But WP uses NPOV, not "Natural science POV", so this particular medium seems to favour your position (assuming I understand it)). I naïvely hope that we can avoid the term, so instead of saying "experts think X' we will say "psychologists think X". I don't know if that will work, but we can try to keep the suggestion in mind. Arbor 09:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Arbor, Maybe I'm not being clear. It's not a problem to call anthropologists "experts" on the topic of "what is race?", but it is a problem to write the public controversy section the way it is currently written where there is no discrimination between what kind of "expert" (i.e. what subject area) is saying what. Thus, I repeated the claim that the view of the AAA is perfect for the article. The best way to solve this is to first differentiate down to questions where contrasting opinions can be demonstrated. Two questions are currently co-mingled in the public controversy lead: (1) "is R&I bogus?" and (2) "what is the cause of group differences in IQ?" Anthropologists can comment on (1) in terms of "what is race?", but not (2) because that's a debate that they don't engage in. The need for making these kinds of distinctions is all but spelled out in WP:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. --Rikurzhen 16:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Let me give a historical example. For centuries, scientists argued over whether "nymphomania" was congenital or environmental. At some point, a lot of "non-experts" or "outsiders" (according to Rikurzhen's definition) started pointing out that this nature/nurture argument was moot, because the diagnosis was bogus. That's what is going on here. The scientists who busy themselves with producing knowledge based on several assumptions carry on despite the considerable number of scholars who point out that this entire endeavor may be a cultural artifact. Every new technology that comes along gets put in use to reify "race" or measure "intelligence." Those who look at the history of science and philosophy of science see a familiar pattern in the current iteration of this R&I debate. They see this as pathological science or some less loaded term.
This article as it stands implies that the scientific debate is legitimate, when it in fact might be (according to people who study this sort of thing) yet another example of science gone awry. Despite a nod toward the "fundamentally flawed" POV, this article forges ahead as if this POV is a minor concern. Jokestress 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
"expert" vs "outsider" - an example of this distinction applied to this topic can be found in Samelson (1982) "Intelligence and some of its testers" Science 215: 656-657.
historical example - of course this is not apt as an analogy -- the practical importance of IQ and the social significance of race are not in question -- I personally understand the idea that a research question can be "bogus" or "fundamentally flawed" and as I tried to make clear with repetition on the talk page, this POV certainly should be described.
here's an equally loaded example - it would not be acceptable to write the global warming article and say that experts disagree and then give quotations from Exxon next to a statement from the IPCC
this article forges ahead as if this POV is a minor concern - we should say as much as needed on this question, but we should not purposefully confound answers to that question with answers to the questions that "experts" are asking. the fact that the majority of people with specific knowledge of this subject don't think it is bogus should be reason enough for doing so.
I'll try to work on the controversy section to demonstrate disambiguation. --Rikurzhen 03:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Global warming is indeed an excellent example. I have seen it brought up many times here. Follow the money, as they say. The scientists funded by ExxonMobil produce knowledge much in the way the scientists funded by Pioneer Fund produce knowledge. In both cases, their research results miraculously match up with the political aims of their benefactors. Jokestress 04:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I would personally love to see evidence to support such a claim. But of course the most robust data sets (for intelligence and global warming) come from government-funded research. --Rikurzhen 05:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would actually like to read Sternberg et al. (2005), because that seems like a potentially good source for counterbalancing this article. I just checked with the library, but they're still on holiday, and I'm not in the Psychology Department (I don't even know where it is...). Anybody here who has that paper? Arbor 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Footnotecruft

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think "my" system of giving references to an external shared reference page now works. Thanks for feedback so far.

There is a trivial editing task ahead, which would encompass giving all the footnotes another check-up. I have started that, but again have become somewhat frustrated by the Wikipedia:Footnote3 system. (Mind you, it's very good within the confines of Wikimedia software, and even my convoluted brain finds no way to improve it.) What annoys me especially are the footnotes that consist of nothing else than a single further reference, i.e., footnotes whose contents is of the form

16. Snyderstein and Goldfarb (1845)

These are now just an annoying extra click.

Could we adopt a mixed system?

  1. When a foonote (1) contains extra information, or (2) points many more than just one or two reference then we keep the current system
  2. When a footnote contains nothing more than an Author–Year citation (possibly with a page number) then we kill it, and move the reference back up into the body text.

Did I explain this well? So body text now has two forms. Either it looks like this:

A statement meant to "outline mainstream science on intelligence" [41] was issued the same year. ...

Notes
...
41. Template:AYref. Of the 100 respondents, 52% signed, 7% indicated that elements of the statement do not represent the mainstream, and 11% did not know enough to say. An additional 14% declined to sign despite generally agreeing with the content, with 8% fearing the personal and professional consequences of signing, and 6% disagreeing with the mode of presentation. Another 4% disagreed with the concept of general intelligence itself, regarding it as “not a useful concept." 12% gave no explanation or did not want to sign "at this time." Thirty-one additional invitees did not respond before the deadline. See also pp. 32-34 in Template:AYref and Chapter XII in Template:AYref. ...

This got a footnote because the footnote itself is really long and contains several complicated references.

On this other hand, if we are just pointing to the literature, I propose the following style:

A statement meant to "outline mainstream science on intelligence" (Template:AYref) was issued the same year.

Granted, the body text becomes a bit longer (actually, the template would allow quite a number of fancy tricks with smaller fonts and superscripts and whatnot). But it (1) saves the annoying extra click, (2) is more informative, and (3) is much easier to maintain when the body text is moved around, as we are doing quite a lot.

I completely realise that this mixed approach to notes is not standard. But it is simpler and safer, and would increase the likelihood of us actually having the references in order. It a technologically induced constraint, but sometimes that's a good enough argument. Arbor 12:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Cruft"?

Your suggestion makes sense to me, and it is a way that is used in many publications. It gets to be very annoying to the compulsive footnote checker to try to read a page that is pockmarked with footnotes. One gets "yo-yo eyes" very quickly. The in-line notes style is much easier to deal with. If it is only a book title and a page number, then your eye glides over the reference. If it is something that needs to be explained but would distort the flow of the paragraph, then it goes into a footnote or an endnote. P0M 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

From Cruft: Words ending in -cruft (e.g. fancruft, schoolcruft, bandcruft), referring to detailed, generally trivial information relating to a particular subject, appears to be a neologism created on Wikipedia. Arbor 16:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Further reading

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Now that Arbor's excellent footnote system is fully implemented, I am going to start adding a bunch of texts to balance this thing out a little. The first order of business seems to be the "Further reading" section, which currently contains just one book. Shall we:

  • 1. expand that to include a selective bibliography (which will undoubtedly be some huge drawn-out discussion of what should be included/excluded)
  • 2. remove the section and send readers to the reference page
  • 3. (lest I create a false dichotomy) another option

Personally, I would like to see an annotated bibliography on this, as mentioned on the references Talk page. I would also like to see the external links organized in a way to help the reader better understand the controversy and find more on the topics/POVs they wish to explore. Jokestress 17:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I cannot see a mechanism by which to select or maintain a further reading section. I vote to remove. Arbor 18:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't think a further reading section is fundamentally unmanagable (e.g. consider external links), but if there is only one item in it, then we can substitute this for a external link to a book review or a see also link to a stub for the book. --Rikurzhen 03:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think that WP is very bad an managing external link sections as well. But that's another discussion. Arbor 11:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Accusations of systematic misrepresentations and the Pioneer Fund

Latest comment: 20 years ago43 comments3 people in discussion

Should obviously be in the main article. If there are systematic misrepresentations, it affects the whole field. Ultramarine 11:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ah. Well, I don't agree (this is a summary style article), but we can discuss it cordially here. I would suggest you work on the relevant subsection, and when we write the three-paragraph summary for section 2 you can lobby for its inclusion. (Remember that ideally the text of section on the main article will be three paragraphs of text, not only a one-line web llnk. But for editorial purposes it seemed wise to write that section before we summarise it.) Arbor 11:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
You have not answered my point. If there are systematic misrepresentations, it affects the whole field. This should not be included sometimes in the future, but now. Regarding the so called "Race and intelligence controversy" article, the name is pov since there are controversies in other articles in this area. Please change the title. Ultramarine 11:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Look man, I am currently only doing the footnotes, and that won't work if you are duplicating sections (without moving the footnotes along as well). Cut me some slack. About renaming Race and intelligence controversy: I can see your point, especially after you removed several paragraphs on controversies that you didn't think belonged to that section. How about Race and intelligence (public controversy)? I would prefer that, since it gives more focus and allows us to debate the scientific controversies somewhere else, which seems to be concordant with your edits. Arbor 11:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Again, you have not answered my point (see above). If the name is Race and intelligence (public controversy), then the systematic misrepresentations do not belong there. Ultramarine 11:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea about your point. I am really only doing the footnotes right now; I hardly even read the sections I am cleaning up. Arbor 11:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Then you should obviously not be doing the reverts. The one who removed the text about misrepresentations should speak out. Again, if there are systematic misrepresentations, it affects the whole field. This should not be included sometimes in the future, but now. Ultramarine 11:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
But it isn't removed, it is moved. I said so on your user talk page, and you can also find it in the preceding section. The old section 2.3 ("Systematic ... Pioneer Fund") has been moved, together with all of section 2, to Race and intelligence controversy, where you can find it in currently two (slightly differing) versions: the one from (the old) Race and intelligence and the one from (the old) Race and intelligence controversy. The reason for this is that we were starting to edit two versions of the same text on two different pages, which is maintenance hell. So all of section 2 is on a separate page (with the Pioneer fund subsection eagerly awaiting your attention). When section 2 is more or less finished (we seem to disagree over what should go into that section), we will write a 3 paragraph summary for Race and intelligence. Arbor 12:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
If there are systematic misrepresentations, it affects the whole field and should be mentioned in the main article. This should not be included sometimes in the future, but now. There is no reason we cannot edit the text on the main article. Another again, the name "Race and intelligence controversy" is both pov and factually incorrect. If the name should be "Race and intelligence (public controversy)", then the systematic misrepresentations do not belong there. Ultramarine 12:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
There is no reason we cannot edit the text on the main article. No. But there is a good reason for not editing the text on two articles at the same time, which was the case over the last few days. (Witness the slightly out of sync versions of several of the paragraphs.) Arbor 12:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Who are arguing that we should discuss the Pioneer fund on several different pages? And again, see my above points. You are violating NPOV by excluding on the main page that the field may contain systematic misrepsentations. Ultramarine 12:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Nobody is arguing that we should discuss the Pioneer fund on several different pages. On the contrary. However, until yesterday, we did. There was a section called "Accusations of systematic misrepresentations and the Pioneer fund" on two pages: Section 2.3 of Race and intelligence and Section 5.1 of Race and intelligence controversy. Both sections were being edited. That's a bad idea. So I proposed we kill the incarnation on the main page and implement the change to Wikepedia:Summary style that we have had in mind for some time, see #Summary style - Race and intelligence controversy). I am sorry that you take offence at what is supposed to be a heroic effort to coördinate our editing. As I said, currently there are two versions of the Pioneer fund section on Race and intelligence controversy, and I urge you to merge them or destroy either of them, so that there is only a single incarnation and we can move on discussing what it should say and what significance that should have. Arbor 12:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
If there are systematic misrepresentations, it affects the whole field and should be mentioned in the main article. This should not be included sometimes in the future, but now. You are violating NPOV by excluding on the main page that the field may contain systematic misrepsentations. There is no reason we cannot edit the text on the main article. The only editing on other pages have been done by those who oppose including systematic misrepresentations in the main article. Another again, the name "Race and intelligence controversy" is both pov and factually incorrect. If the name should be "Race and intelligence (public controversy)", then the systematic misrepresentations do not belong there. Ultramarine 12:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you could suggest a different name? My suggestion for ... (public controversy) was based on (apart from consistency) the fact that you have removed several paragraphs from that subarticle that would belong under the scientific controversy (if I understand your motivation correctly), so I was assuming you wanted to separate the public debate from the scientific debate. (Obviously I was wrong.) In that case, the accusations about the research begin tainted by its funding (if that is the gist of the section) seemed to be to belong to the public debate (for example, the point is made in Shermer's book about pseudoscience if I remember correctly). However, I clearly misunderstood you. It would be more efficient if you proposed a new headline for section 2 and the associated subarticle, so that I understand what you think should be in there. Arbor 12:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Something with (public controversy) may be ok. Again, then systematic misrepresentations of the field do not belong there. Ultramarine 12:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Now I understand you strong reaction, after clicking though the article history. The Pioneer fund section used to be under the section Background information, for example around July 11 2005, when you were involved in it. After some reorganisation after the Featured Article nomination, it was moved under the new headline Public controversy, together with some other stuff in the second half of July. For example, when you edited the section yesterday, it was already under Public controversy, but I understand you don't agree with that, because you think it belongs under Background information. Did I get that right, at least in part? Arbor 13:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Where the article may have been sorted previosuly is not important for where it should be. The strong possibility of systematic misrepresentations in the field should obviosuly be mentioned in the main article. Ultramarine 13:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
So you are ok with it being sorted under the headline Public controversy (as it was yesterday, when you edited it) as long as it is featured prominently on the main page? Arbor 13:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
No. Systematic misrepresentations is not only a public controversy. Ultramarine 13:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
(This is a bit exhausting. Maybe you could just tell me where the section should go?) Do you think the section belongs under Background information? (I just asked that, but I seem to have misunderstood your answer...) Arbor 13:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Background information is fine. Ultramarine 13:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hm... in its current form, the section is question explains why the research is controversial, and it is used in the public debate. However, I suspect one could change it a bit (removing the implications), give it a historical perspective, and in some way merge it into the History section (chronicling how some of this research has been funded)? One could then mention that some people have attacked the hereditary position based on its funding in the Public controversy section without rehashing the funding history. I'm not convinced that would really work, but maybe you want to give it a shot? Using this trick you could get the Pioneer fund angle into two subsections. I also suspect that I don't quite understand the magnitude of your argument. At least the current form of the Pioneer fund section (which is just two paragraphs) doesn't seem to merit the central placement you want to give this material. Maybe you would want to expand on the section. Arbor 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Again, systematic misrepresentations do not belong in "public controversy" at all. Background information may be a good place, probably with its own section called "Systematic misrepresentations?" Ultramarine 14:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I fear that would be difficult without violating WP:NOR. But I really need to see the section you are thinking of before I can comment. I again urge you to flesh out those two paragraphs first. Arbor 14:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Just use the 3 paragraphs that has been deleted from the main page. Ultramarine 14:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
These 3 paragraphs currently exist in 2 versions: Race and intelligence controversy#Accusations of systematic misrepresentations and the Pioneer Fund v1 and Race and intelligence controversy#Accusations of systematic misrepresentations and the Pioneer Fund v2. Please heed my repeated encouragements to merge the two or remove one of them. (See also Race and intelligence controversy#divergence of text, where the discrepancy is pointed out). I just want to get the number of incarnations of this argument down to 1. Afterwards we can discuss where it should go or what it should mean. (In its current form, I think it belongs where it is, but I am willing to reconsider that after we get it cleaned up so that we are all, as they say, on the same page.) Arbor 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
If there are systematic misrepresentations, it affects the whole field and should be mentioned in the main article. This should not be included sometimes in the future, but now. You are violating NPOV by excluding on the main page that the field may contain systematic misrepsentations. There is no reason we cannot edit the text on the main article. The 3 removed paragraph should probably have their own section in "Background information" using a title like "Systematic misinterpretations". Whatever other versions exists in other articles do not affect the above arguments. The only editing on other pages have been done by those who oppose including systematic misrepresentations in the main article. Another again, the name "Race and intelligence controversy" is both pov and factually incorrect. If the name should be "Race and intelligence (public controversy)", then the systematic misrepresentations do not belong there. Ultramarine 14:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
If I understand that response then you seem to be adverse to merging the two versions. Would you like me to do it instead? I seem to be the least qualified here, but I cannot see how we can constructively debate the epistemological significance of 3 paragraphs that we don't know which are. Arbor 14:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Any merging and editing can be done on the main page. Stop violating NPOV. Ultramarine 14:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Would you advocate moving section 6.3 of Race and intelligence controversy to become a new subsection 1.2 of Race and intelligence? Thereby it would exist under the Background information headline, and be placed on the main page? (I don't like that, but by all means lets try it.) Arbor 14:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
(Later:) Forget it. Somebody else has merged the sections. I am happy. Arbor 15:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Fine. Then add back the deleted paragraphs. Ultramarine 15:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
As you can see, I have just advocated thinking about that. But first, the paragraphs need to be cleaned up. (They are really badly sourced.) You can help. Arbor 15:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately I had to use the Two-version template to stop the deletions. Now, lets discuss the facts. What are the objections to the facts presented in my version? Ultramarine 16:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Ultramarine for making one of my primary points! The editors who have developed this series have decided among them what goes on the "main" page, when the main issue is in fact the controversy, not the results of the controversial testing. Jokestress 16:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Um... I'm not sure that you two are actually in agreement, but I haven't quite figured out what Ultramarine is proposing. So for the sake of all, everyone try to figure out what they're really saying rather than just objecting. Try to reconcile (1) the need for summary style with (2) the demands for attention of this or that topic. Later... --Rikurzhen 16:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Jokestress, I count a number of concrete proposals above (for example at 14:58) that I have made that would make the passage in question appear on the main page. I really have nothing against it. Please assume good faith. But please can we start editing that section? It is in terrible state.Arbor 16:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have nothing against editing using references, as long as there is not just deletions. I suggest that you present your proposed version here on the talk page. Ultramarine 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ultramarine's and my point is that this series is POV at the headline and article division level. It is a fundamental problem with the way the information is presented throughout the series. Two for two on edit conflicts, so I'll be back when this cools down. I am also making a talk page suggestion below. Jokestress 16:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, Rik and I suspect the two of you disagree on the proper name and focus of the controversy article. Rik and I are fine with its current name, but Ultramarine is arguing for Race and intelligence (public controversy) or something similar, so as to focus on the public debate as opposed to the scientific one (he has made very large cuts in that direction as well). From what you have said so far, I suspect you disagree with that. Could you meet us at the talk page of the Controversy article? Otherwise I guess we will rename it quickly, because Ultramarine seems to feel very strongly about it. I guess don't care much either way. Arbor 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
(Later:) Or wait! Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Maybe if we have Race and intelligence (public controversy) then you can get the Race and intelligence controversy main article that I believe you want. That article could itself be a summary article that shares with Race and intelligence a number of subsections, but can impose whatever change in structure or tone you would prefer, and contain other subarticles (like, say, Scientific racism or whatever)? (Well, it's a wild idea: two summary articles sharing a sizeable intersection of subarticles. But this topic calls for clever solutions. Maybe I am just crazy and still completely misunderstand you. In that case ignore me.) Arbor 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

References

Phew. I moved stuff around, I hope Jokestress and Ultramarine are OK with this. (I am really trying to read your minds here.) I used the slightly "more cleaned-up" version from the Controversy page, but there are at least three issues of very bad referencing that I would like the cognoscenti to consider: (moved the list from the Controversy page). It's really one of our worst-written and worst-referenced sections just now, so please help me do something about that.

  • The footnote called "Rusthon" points to

    Joseph L Graves, "What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory," Anthropological Theory 2, no. 2 (2002): 131–54; Leonard Lieberman, "How 'Caucasoids' got such big crania and why they shrank. From Morton to Rushton.," Current Anthropology 42, no. 1 (February 2001): 69–95; Zack Cernovsky, "On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton," Journal of Black Studies 25 (1995): 672.

All all three necessary? Which one includes the porn and Penthouse references? Is this really a good summary of the scholarly malfeasance that Rushton is criticised for? I would prefer just a single references, instead of 3 that say the same.
The porn and penthouse refernce is the one that is publicly available. I see no problem with having several supporting references. Ultramarine 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Ditto for Gould. I would like a single reference that criticises Gould. Should be easy enough. The Gasper (2002) reference I already discounted (see above), and the "Goosed-up graphics" is also not so good, since it attacks an argument that doesn't really have anything to do with Gould's position qua race and intelligence research.
  • The "Pioneer Film" footnote has not reference at all and is just dangling in the air. Arbor 17:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
That is beacuse you removed the referencec. Ultramarine 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Talk page suggestion

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page is extremely cumbersome. I have a suggestion and no idea how it might be implemented. I'd love to see this look more like a nested thread on a bulletin board or something, with the top talk page listing the heading (and maybe how many new responses), and those links taking someone to that heading on its own page. I got to thinking about it after seeing how Arbor made the footnotes and references work, which is very cool. I will be unavailable most of today, but I wanted to throw this out there. Jokestress 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Pioneer Fund

Latest comment: 20 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

An Editor deleted this material with the comment, " The article is not about the Pioneer Fund":

  • It has also paid for publication and large-scale distribution of materials like the Nazi propaganda film "Hereditary Defective" to high schools, colleges, and churches across the US. The film was produced by the Racial Political Office of the Nazi Party. The fascist Roger Pearson received over a million dollar in eighties and nineties [19][20]. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Pioneer Fund as a hate group. The Pioneer Fund has stated it rejects racism, and has claimed it is the victim of smear campaigns waged by those who consider a discussion of race to be taboo.

I added a much shorter description of the Pioneer Fund:

  • The Pioneer Fund was established in 1937 to further eugenics.

And that was also deleted. The Pioneer Fund and its motives are highly relevant to this article as they have been leading funders of research into race and intelligence. If references that characterize the Pioneer Fund are removed then so should all references to research funded by them. -Willmcw 20:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for The Pioneer Fund was established in 1937 to further eugenics? hitssquad 21:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It's in their charter.[21] -Willmcw 21:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that the name of the article be changed to Pioneer Fund and that all references to race and intelligence be deleted. --[ Hitssquad ]
That's a drastic proposal and I doubt that you are serious. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see how much of the material here was paid for by the Pioneer Fund. -Willmcw 22:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I was serious. The article is being used for advertising purposes. The original contents of the article should be deleted, the advertising items should remain, and the name of the article should be changed to reflect those remaining contents. hitssquad 17:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I've rewritten the Pioneer Fund summary. Critics often fallaciously rely on removing it from its historical context and on the assumption that race and intelligence research is racist. Eugenics was considered at the time to have great potential and was embraced by most developed nations. This summary needs to note the questionable views of some of the fund's historical members, but not go so far as to reduce it to the views of these members, as the vast majority of its work is relatively uncontroversial, and sometimes quite notable (e.g. the Minnesota Twins Project).--Nectarflowed T 22:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'd quibble with "vast majority", but since it ins't in the article it isn't relevant. As of 1937 it was not a "scholarly" field, so I'll remove that word. -Willmcw 22:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Eugenics was an academic discipline at many universities, and the 1930s were still part of the eugenics era.--Nectarflowed T 11:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
What universities had eugenics programs in 1937? -Willmcw 22:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
In the 1940s eugenics was still being tauted in high school and university text books. The stigmatization you're referring to that occured in reaction to the Nazi abuses didn't happen overnight. Tamer eugenics programs continued for decades.--Nectarflowed T 23:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ultramarine has just reverted all the good edits you folks made to that section. (Kudos, by the way. That was a very nice example of collaboritive editing by people with differing viewpoints that resulted in an improved presentation.) I am a bit exasparated by U's editing style and tone on the talk page, so I am not sure what we should do about this. I would prefer to have his viewpoints incorporated (and I hope yesterday's multi-hour session is documents my openness to accomodate his ideas, though I find them ill adviced), but I don't have the energy for yet another round. The collaborative version of Nectar, Rik, Will, and Hits is much better written, clearer, and describes the anti-Rushton POV home much more forcefully than Ultra's (somewhat petty and random) rant about the Pioneer fund (I actually think his POV is much better served in the collaborative version). Suggestions? I am clearly not qualified to communicate with Ultramarine. Arbor 15:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Your version is certainly not NPOV. It omits all recent referenced questionable activity and criticism as well as the magnitude of the grants. Ultramarine 15:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
An article incorporating editors' viewpoints is an article incorporating advertising. Can you imagine showing this article to an acquaintance? The person might naturally be expecting to see an article about Race and Intelligence, but instead sees a bunch of advertising incorporated into the main body of the text. Make it editors'-viewpoints-free and you have an advertising free article that people from any viewpoint can agree is an item of useful reference. hitssquad 18:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hitssquad, you do not seem to understand wikipedia:NPOV. Wikipedia should not hide different views. Ultramarine 02:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
The advertisements placed in the text were not views on Race and Intelligence. They were advertisements for products unrelated to Race and Intelligence. Wikipedia can hide advertisements without violating NPOV. hitssquad 03:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It sounds like your're saying that some editors have been trying to push the article toward something that would more appropriately be called anti-race and intelligence. If such is happening, they have a lot of company. Steven Pinker has noted how when dealing with taboo science topics, like genetics, ordinarily intelligent scientists lose some of their abilities and start to distort things.[22]--Nectarflowed T 20:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
What is your point? Again, your version was certainly not NPOV. It omited all recent referenced questionable activity and criticism as well as the magnitude of the grants. Ultramarine 02:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Pioneer Fund summary

Arbor, I think Ultramarine just feels strongly about this topic and is letting that affect his edits. Let me rehash again the problems with the old Pioneer summary (these issues are coming up at the Pioneer page also).

1. Science funding obviously always deals with large amounts of money. For example, California's stem cell institute annually provides $300 million in funding. Emphasizing the relatively tiny amount of Pioneer funding (it is small fund) is probably meant to imply to vulnerable readers that it is actually a very large amount and that there is something sinister here.

2. The film they distributed was a eugenics film, produced by the early (pre-war i.e. pre-considered-to-be-evil) Nazi party. Ultramarine has described it here as a "Nazi propaganda film," relying on that vulnerable readers will bring their definition of later Nazi atrocities to the Fund's activities. This is a reductio ad hitlerum logical fallacy.

3. Ultramarine then goes on to introduce a grantee as "the fascist Roger Pearson," and proceeds to emphasize the relatively small (but spuriosly appearing to be large) monetary amount of his grants. I've explained on the Pioneer Fund talk page to Ultramarine why Wikipedia shouldn't dishonestly frame phenomenon, and this isn't as bad as what occurred there, but it is still unacceptable.

Roger Pearson is an athropologist and founder of several journals, including The Journal of Indo-European Studies, an anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics journal which one of the gnxp writers states to be "rather prestigious"[23] (I don't personally know). Prior to becoming an anthropologist, apparently in the 50s and 60s, his writings were extreme-rightist, and in the 70s he apparently moved into the conservative mainstream.[24] Opponents try to close the conversation by dismissing him as a fascist etc.

4. The Southern Poverty Law Center uses fallacious reasoning when they label the fund a "hate group,"[25] and they pretend the large amount of valuable scientific research Pioneer has funded at dozens of prominent universities doesn't exist. One third of their explanation is that it conducts race and intelligence research, which they consider to be scientific racism.

Another third of their reasoning fails to differentiate between the modern organization and the historical organization, and refers to criticism that their history reflects the history of the US, i.e. it contains historical attitudes, such as Anglocentrism, that are now disaproved of. This history allegedly includes in the 1930s or 1940s aiding in the publishing of the autobiography of a then-popular racist southern novelist, Thomas Dixon.

The last third of their reasoning refers to the funding of immigration reform organizations and of an extreme right (paleoconservative and white nationalist) journalist and editor named Jared Taylor. For an example of what apparently qualifies as white nationalist journalism, see this American Renaissance page of articles, including one that depicts Jensen being harassed by demonstrators. This is just standard US republican writing, and is in line with or a little to the right of the views of most viewers of Fox News.

--Nectarflowed T 22:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply


Responding to the numbered points:
1. The type of research that will be (not has been) funded by the California stem cell research program is not comparable to the type of research conducted by Pioneer Fund researchers. They are apples and oranges.
2. The film was created by Nazis to further eugenics. That's the plain truth, not an innuendo or a logical fallacy. OTOH, it doesn't need to be in this article.
3. Searching on [Fascist "Roger Pearson"] brings many results, such as these: [26][27][28][29][30], etc. Pearson is or was a fascist, according to numerous sources.
4. If you have a rebuttal from the Pioneer or a source which criticizes the SPLC's reasoning for calling the Pioneer Fund a hate group then that's worthwhile. But we shouldn't use our own logic and reasoning to judge the designation wrong, because that would be original research.
Regarding the relevance of the Pioneer Fund's mission statement, it is relevant when science is funded by a group with an agenda. It goes directly to the credibility of the material their research produces.
-Willmcw 23:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
1. The stated point was "science funding always deals with large amounts of money."
2. A Nazi collaborator when they were just a German political party is different from a Nazi collaborator once the war started, once the U.S. declared war, and once the Nuremberg Trials had revealed their practices. Do you disagree? You support inclusion of the point because readers will mistakenly apply the definition from a different time (Nazi = evil). Yes, that is fallacious.
3. Yes, like any researcher who is mentioned related to race and intelligence, there is a host of sources calling them names. Pearson's actual biography needs to take precedence.
4. Part of writing a reputable article is choosing which sources add something legitimate, which the SPLCenter's reasoning doesn't. And, to be fair, they aren't scientists; they don't have expertise to bring to this.--Nectarflowed T 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
3. Calling someone a fascist is an attribution of motive. Motives cannot be tenably attributed unless such attribution has been confirmed by the subject himself. Unless Pearson calls himself a fascist, anyone else calling him a fascist is merely name-calling. Willmcw wrote Searching on [Fascist "Roger Pearson"] brings many results. Googling "is a fascist" [[31]] brings 43,800 results. Are all of those people really fascists? Sophie Panopoulos? Mozart? Santa Claus? hitssquad 01:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
1. For a psychology professor, $100,000 is probably a large research budget. For a biomedical researcher, it is not enough to even pay for lab equipment. The kind of research some do grantees is just re-analysis of other studies. That's pretty cheap.
2. As long as we indicate the date, 1937, we can assume that readers have enough familiarlity with history to know that World War II had not yet started. However I'm not sure that beloings in this article at all.
3. The fascists are not just "any" political orientation when it comes to matters of race and intelligence. Various fascist parties have been noted for having strong views on the issue. If a researcher is involved in political causes which call his impartiality into question, then that is a relevant matter to present along with his data.
4. Most private scholarly foundations are not called hate groups. The fact that the Pioneer Group has been shows that it is not a typical foundation.
-Willmcw 01:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Advertising in article

Latest comment: 20 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

Nectarflowed wrote, It sounds like your're saying that some editors have been trying to push the article toward... No. I'm saying that the article is very professional on the whole and that that is the problem. The advertisements that were placed within the text are reaching audiences that might never otherwise see them. The reader sees this great article and reads through it and is subjected to this advertiseing in the middle. He shares the link with his friends because it is, on the whole, a great article. His friends get subjected to the advertising. What we had before the advertising was inserted (or re-inserted) was Many of the IQ researchers supporting genetic differences in intelligence between races, like the above mentioned IQ researcher J. Philippe Rushton, have received millions of dollars in monetary grants from the Pioneer Fund, something often criticized. (Tucker 2002, Lombardo 2002, Kenny 2002) [9]. That was a concise and powerful statement. The implication of the statement is that there must or may be something seriously amiss with the Pioneer Fund if differential-psychology researchers are often criticized for receiving funding from it. Anyone who wants to know more can simply click on the Pioneer Fund link.

That would be NPOV, just as would be mentioning Nike in a newscast because someone had accidentally crashed his car into the front of a Nike store. It becomes advertising if the reporter on the scene goes into the store and starts talking to the viewers for a stretch of many minutes about the various shoes for sale and their respective features and benefits and prices. This is analogous to what happened in this article. Readers can go into the Pioneer Fund store if they wish and find all that information out. Bringing the contents of the Pioneer Fund article into other Wiki articles simply because they are related topics is advertisement.

Willmcw headed one of his changes Pioneer Fund's mission is highly relevant to this article. Pioneer Fund's mission is relevant. That is why we had linked within this article to the Pioneer Fund article. A mishmash of titillating [[32] pull-quotes from the Pioneer Fund article is of diminished relevance to the point that it appears that the article is being used as a vehicle to get messages across to not-in-the-choir readers.

Nectarflowed wrote, If such is happening, they have a lot of company. Steven Pinker has noted how when dealing with taboo science topics, like genetics, ordinarily intelligent scientists lose some of their abilities and start to distort things. Pinker's book is drama. Biased motives in editors or scientists are irrelevant. What is important to the production of good articles is to stop trying to cater to each other's vices. Making a hedonics pact wherein every editor gets to make an equal bit of visceral contribution doesn't make a professional article. It makes an article with a bunch of advertising in it. hitssquad 23:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The description above is incorrect. Here is the difference [33]. Note that the earlier version implies that all questionable funding happened in the distant past, makes no mention of the large scale of the grants, and makes no mention of the Pioneer fund being labeled as a hate group by a prominent anti-racist organization. Ultramarine 02:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
1. Your reply failed to address the point made in my first paragraph.
2. The phrase millions of dollars does not imply scale. It is a marketing term commonly used in the advertising trade. To imply scale, the reading audience would have to know what are typically low and high funding figures.
3. The SPLC is not an anti-racist organization. hitssquad 03:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Your argument seems to be that the Pioneer Fund and its activites is not related to this article. This is false. Many scientific journals, especially in controversial areas, require that the author should list to the reader any potential conflicts of interests, like financial ties that can create bias. Doing research on IQ and race and receiving millions of dollars from an organization that also funds fascists and white nationalists certainly qualify, especially as the research itself is very cheap. Ultramarine 04:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ultramarine wrote: Your argument seems to be that the Pioneer Fund ... is not related to this article. None of your responses seem to take account what I wrote. Are you asking me to repeat my first paragraph? Here is a paraphrase: Linking to Pioneer Fund within the article is a mention of Pioneer Fund within the article. The reason it should be mentioned within the article is that it is related. The reason the Pioneer Fund article should not be inserted, in whole or in part, into an article on Race and Intelligence is that the Pioneer Fund is not the subject of that article. Doing so constitutes an instance of advertisement. Advertisements do not belong in encyclopedia articles. hitssquad 17:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Many scientific journals... require that the author should list to the reader any potential conflicts of interests, like financial ties that can create bias. - That's true. If you owned stock in a company that would benefit from the research, for example. But it doesn't seem that receiving a salary from a funding agency is a competing financial interest. especially as the research itself is very cheap - are you sure? the biggest cost of research is paying for labor (salary, health insurance, plus overhead costs, etc.).
An editorial decision needs to be made on this subject. People should make proposals and which we should consider and vote on. Right now we're not getting very far by just randomly throwing claims back and forth. --Rikurzhen 06:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
But the IQ researchers already have salaries and health insurance from their universities. Regarding voting, Wikipedia works by consensus in cases like this. Regarding funding, see for example this from a tobacco journal:
The stated policy of Nicotine & Tobacco Research is that authors whose manuscripts are accepted for publication must declare all sources of funding in support of the preparation of any paper submitted for peer review. The journal requires full disclosure of financial support, whether it is from the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical or any other industry, government agencies, foundations, or any other source. [34]. Ultramarine 07:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
By vote, I don't mean to imply majority rule. Declaring funding is not the same as declaring competing financial interests; the consideration of funding should take place at the level of peer review but it seems to be a step beyond what WP readers of a summary style main article would need to read. But this is getting off subject. I personally can't follow the details of this debate fully, which is why I suggested that specific proposals should be spelled out so we can evaluate them. --Rikurzhen 07:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously journals in controversial areas require disclosure of funding exactly because it can give a bias to the research. The very large funding from a very questionable source should be mentioned. I have already given one proposal for how to do this. What is yours? Ultramarine 13:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Check my first paragraph in this section. It says: Many of the IQ researchers supporting genetic differences in intelligence between races, like the above mentioned IQ researcher J. Philippe Rushton, have received millions of dollars in monetary grants from the Pioneer Fund, something often criticized. (Tucker 2002, Lombardo 2002, Kenny 2002) [9]. Why don't you now tell all of us, Ultramarine, how that is not a mention of funding by the Pioneer Fund. hitssquad 17:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
At last, some good discussion. We should of course briefly mention why it is critczed. I propse something like "Many of the IQ researchers supporting genetic differences in intelligence between races, like the above mentioned IQ researcher and current head of the fund J. Philippe Rushton, have received millions of dollars in monetary grants from the Pioneer Fund, something often criticized. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an anti-racism organization, lists the Pioneer Fund as a hate group due to its funding of many alleged racist or fascist organizations and individuals [35]." Ultramarine 17:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
That looks like good langauge - more to the point than mentioning the Nazi film. -Willmcw 19:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

First off, let's remember what the obvious (meaning, minimally, first-step) solution to this disagreement is: has anyone published in a reputable source (whether scholarly or popular) questioned a Race/IQ researcher's bias based on the researcher's source of funding? If so, it is reasonable for this article to report that. If the source it itself biased (e.g. the National Review or the Nation) I think it would be reasonable to state paranthetically "a popular left-wing" or "a popular right-wing" publication. If the source is not popular, I think it is reasonable to provide a little context as well (e.g., "an independent scholarly journal," "the journal of the APA," or "A journal published by a consortium of pharmaceutical companies" — providing this contextualizing information takes up little space and reasonable people should be able to agree on what a fair description would be; including it is consistent with our verifiability and cite sources policies which encourage us to provide enough information about a publication so that readers can reach their own conclusions about bias). I do not know, but it would not surprise me if someone who is not a wikipedia editor has questioned Rushton or Jenson or someone else's work based on their funding source in a reputable publication. If this is the case, we have nothing really to argue about. We report it.

If no one (published in a major source, popular or scholarly) has questioned research based on its funding, well, then we can argue about this. So I'll conclude with my own opinion: Hitsquad wrote, above, "Biased motives in editors or scientists are irrelevant. What is important to the production of good articles is to stop trying to cater to each other's vices. Making a hedonics pact wherein every editor gets to make an equal bit of visceral contribution doesn't make a professional article," which I just do not understand. For one thing, I do not understand what Hitsquad means by "hedonics" or "visceral contribution." Be that as it may, it is a categorical error to conflate "editors" and "scientists." "Editors" are obliged to follow Wikipedia policies and are accountable to one another. "Scientists" are not obliged to follow wikipedia policies, and are not accountable to us. As editors, it is true that our own biases should not be reflected in the article (i.e. we have to follow our NPOV policy). But it is never a violation of NPOV policy for us to provide accurate contextual information about any source (scientist, or journal). On the contrary, it is a good idea.

It is true that when scientists teach scientific method to their students, they emphasize the importance of objectivity. I accept this as an accurate statement. But the fact that scientists value objectivity does not mean that all scientists are always objective. It would violate our NPOV policy for one of us editors to claim in an article that someone (Rushton or Gould) is biased. So we should not do that. But we should always provide any contextual information that may be relevant, as long as it is accurate.

I certainly think we should consider a separate section dedicated to discussing the possible political motives behind this research, because others have published on this topic, specifically in regard to this area of research. In such a section, we could go into greater detail. For example, the Pioneer Fund claims that "The Pioneer Fund is neutral on political and social issues and avoids grantees with social agendas to push," and if we mention that Rushton has received funding from the PF I think we should include this quote. However, to maintain NPOV, if anyone has published in a reputable publication a claim that the PF is in fact biased, we should mention that as well. We might also consider adding a bit more information such as the fact that among the founders of the PF were scientists who promoted eugenics and the argument that differences in intelligence are inherited, as well as jurists who prospecuted Naxis at the Nuremburg trials, and a Supreme Court Justice who concurred with the second Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed ruling (these facts are available from the PF website). And we could include arguments by published critics of the PF as well.

By the way, I have no idea what people mean by "advertizing" here. I don't see any advertizing and don't see this as a relevant issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here are several scholarly studies and criticisms of the Pioneer fund and supported IQ and race research.

Surely reports that juxtapose "Pioneer Fund", "Nazi", "Racism" and "Rushton" exist. But do any of them actually claim that Pioneer Funds bias researchers? A 1998 editorial INTELLIGENCE 26(4): 319-336 says they do not. --Rikurzhen 15:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
They certainly argue that or at the very least that it is important to know, like knowing if a tobacco company sponsor a study on nicotine. Also, could you please list the policy of INTELLIGENCE regarding potential conflicts of interest and disclosure of funding. Ultramarine 15:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
list the policy of INTELLIGENCE regarding potential conflicts of interest and disclosure of funding -- i don't know, google it. They certainly argue... at least show me a quotation. I skimmed them and searched for "bias" and all I saw was the accusation that they were evil, not that they were biased. That is, this sounds like good material for the "Nazi" and "racist" name calling section of the article. --Rikurzhen 15:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Again, it is important to know, like knowing if a tobacco company sponsors a study on nicotine. Which is exactly why many journals require that the readers should know this. Regarding INTELLIGENCE, I could not find any, which certainly casts some doubt on the whole journal. Imagine if a tobacco journal had no such policy. Ultramarine 15:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Tobacco is a multibillion dollar industry; research about tobacco has enormous financial consequences. I still don't see how knowing who's paying the bills tells you about bias in IQ research. I'd like to see that spelled out because it's not at all clear to me. Preferrably spell out by a verifiable source. --Rikurzhen 15:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Again, there is scholarly critic that all the major researchers arguing for genetic differences in IQ between races have received millions from a fund that also gives millions to fascists. You may not understand that this is a problem, but because this is a scholarly critique of the field, Wikipedia should mention it. Ultramarine 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
The writing implies this critique is about money, but from what I can see this is about accusations of racism. Race_and_intelligence_controversy#Racism is the place to discuss such accusations. --Rikurzhen 16:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I see merit in both Ultramarine's and Rikurzhen's points. Ultramarine is providing examples from what seem to be to be very legitimate sources. Rikurzhen is right, logically, that just because some people affiliated with the PF have been biased does not mean that all people who receive funding from PF are biased. My question is, what, specifically, do Ultramarine's sources argue? Do any of them, for example, speficically mention Rushton or other scientists mentioned in this article? If so, we should definitely quote them. If not, perhaps it would be sufficient to add a parenthetical that the PF has been linked to racism, with a link to an article on the PF that goes into greater detail. In other words, I think that the link Ultramarine is making between Rushton, PF, and racism merits mention in the article. However, unless the sources Ultramarine cites have more detailed arguments and evidence directly relvant to this article, I don't think the question should be discussed in detail in this article. Yes, the source of the money is relevant. But it doesn't ipso facto prove anything. It would be better to devote space to examining the arguments that Rushton is a racist and that his arguments are weak based on sources that explicitly address Rushton and his research, and put details about the PF (or debates about the PF) in the PF article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they mention them. See for example the last 3 links which leads to relatively short articles. Ultramarine 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
See also Pioneer fund. Ultramarine 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
If this is about accusations of racism then Race_and_intelligence_controversy#Racism is the place to discuss it. --Rikurzhen 16:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
This is more about bias in research in general than than racism in particular. The Pioneer Fund supports the research of those who agree with its hereditarian views. -Willmcw 21:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Question

Can someone who has read the references about the Pioneer Fund answer a question: is the accuastion merely that many "hereditarians" have received funding for work by the Pioneer Fund or the ostenisbly more concerning situation that most data that "hereditarians" cite was generated by Pioneer Fund supported work? If known, it would be good to make that distinction clear in the article. --Rikurzhen 21:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Here's one statistic:
  • According to an American Broadcasting Company news report, the Pioneer Fund contributed $3.5 million to researchers cited in The Bell Curve, and almost half of the research cited to support the most controversial racial conclusions of the book was paid for by the Pioneer Fund. [36]
If not "most", then at least a large minority of researchers who support hereditarian views on intelligence seem to have been funded by the Pioneer Fund. -Willmcw 00:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
… and I don't think anybody says that we shouldn't include that POV. (For example it is largely the argument used by Shermer in Why people believe weird things, who devotes a whole chapter to it and largely builds the case "against race and intelligence research" on it. Very important to many people—including myself at a time.) The question is how and where this argument needs to be presented. Somebody needs to present this as a cogent of the form "Much of this research has been funded by the PF. Since the PF's mission statement is to promote research in to human biodiversity, critics have pointed out that yada-yada. Moreover, the PF has sometimes been accused of actively promoting racism, for example by yada-yada. However, blabla." I am sure that can be done, and several of you (Rik, Hits, Will, etc.) were working toward that goal. But thanks to Ultramarine's and Jokestress' reversion we are now back at square one, where the argument is presented as a confused string of insinuations and petty pointers in some stream-of-consciousness prose that (1) are far below the level of discourse that would merit their inclusion in Background section, and (2) are so far removed from arguments that are actually found in books (like Shermer's or skepdic's) as to constitute Original Research instead of being a honest representation of a common POV.
(Don't misunderstand me: I think the "argument from biased funding" is sufficiently well-known to merit inclusion at a very visible place of this article—I would have thought he summary of Public controversy to be just the place, but can live with Background. But the "argument from Penthouse", the "argument from SPLC" and to some extend even the Reductio ad Hitlerum are far below the "intelligent discourse level" that I want to read when opening an encyclopedia and they are minority POVs whose overexposure violates WP:NPOV.)
As to (1), my quibbles would disappear if this was part of Race and intelligence controversy, which is just the place for minority POVs. Arbor 18:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Insanely busy weekend, but I was planning to make that point more or less exactly. Currently the section we're discussing consists merely of a juxtaposition of various criticisms in such a way that they seem to be making a point, but there is no logical structure to it. This is below the standard we should expect from this article. I'm 100% behind Arbor's comments. --Rikurzhen 19:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
As you just noted, "argument from biased funding" is sufficiently well-known to merit inclusion at a very visible place of this article. The title "Race and intelligence controversy" is pov and factually incorrect, which is discussed elsewhere. And where is evidence that the critique is the "minority pov"? Ultramarine 19:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I've addressed your concern about the article title. Now you should consider the main part of Arbor's comment: Somebody needs to present this as a cogent of the form "Much of this research has been funded by the PF... --Rikurzhen 20:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
As I have noted earlier, the critique should not be hidden in another article as "public controversy". That large scale funding can give biased research is where much part of the evaluation process in science. Ultramarine 21:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
The main point is not what article this content should be in but rather how it should be written. All attempts to write a logically structured argument have been overwritten. As Arbor wrote: Somebody needs to present this as a cogent of the form "Much of this research has been funded by the PF. Since the PF's mission statement is to promote research in to human biodiversity, critics have pointed out that yada-yada. Moreover, the PF has sometimes been accused of actively promoting racism, for example by yada-yada. However, blabla." I am sure that can be done, and several of you (Rik, Hits, Will, etc.) were working toward that goal. But thanks to Ultramarine's and Jokestress' reversion we are now back at square one, where the argument is presented as a confused string of insinuations and petty pointers in some stream-of-consciousness prose that (1) are far below the level of discourse that would merit their inclusion in Background section, and (2) are so far removed from arguments that are actually found in books (like Shermer's or skepdic's) as to constitute Original Research instead of being a honest representation of a common POV. --Rikurzhen 21:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I guess you consider the complete deletion of every mention of the critique done by you, Hitsquad, and Arbor to be "attempts to write a logically structured argument" [37][38][39]. Ultramarine 21:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rushton semipornographic accusation

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This accusation sounds like it could be political mischief; has anyone looked into this? The user who added this appears to have gotten it from this Zack Cernovsky article.

  • "Some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum" (Cernovsky)--Nectarflowed T 11:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it would help to state the reference details of the book and the article. hitssquad 17:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Cernovsky attributes the claim to Weizmann, F, Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. (1991). Eggs, eggplants, and eggheads: A rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian Psychology, 32, 43-50.--Nectarflowed T 23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This is mostly a news flash that might interest some of you. (No consequences about the material we present here are implied.)

One of the things that interests me about the Race and intelligence issue the its perception among sceptics (i.e., members of the Sceptic Society and similar organisations). The Skeptic dictionary (to which we link) is a good presentation of the viewpoint traditionally entertained by a large number of skeptics (large consonant with Shermer)—a viewpoint I myself have followed (and repeated) with great conviction. I think that up to the early 90s, one could have said "the sceptic society is very critical of race and intelligence research" or something similar. However, at least since the Miele–Jensen book this is no longer true, and the "skeptic society" (however we want to define that group of fine indivuduals (which includes myself)) no longer has a clear POV on the matter.

However, the Skepdic entry remains as it has been, at least in print. The web edition (to which we link from the front page) has contained for a while now a very critical counterpoint to the entry basically attacking the entry for many of the vices traditionally scorned by skeptics. Some new things have appeared on that page, however. First, the page now links to our very own Race and intelligence page (or rather a derived version. That's great news and a pat on the back for the fine editors on this page.

It also links to the June PPPL issue. For a time now it has linked to the "Does race exist?" [40] debate between two anthropology professors. I think this is good news for all. The skepdic entry tries to present a much broader number of viewpoints than before, which should be consonant with the mission statement on that movement. Arbor 18:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you are talking about this article, I don't see mention of Wikipedia. Can you cite the link? Also, skepticism is an immutable position or a philosophy, not a POV. That's not to say that scientific skeptics (like me) don't have a POV. Jokestress 19:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The link is at the bottom (with a yellow New sticker). It's called Dr John Grohol's Psych Central: Race and intelligence, and turns out to be this very article. As I said, I think until the mid-90s, the proponents of scientific scepticism seem to have had a unified POV on race and intelligence research, well represented by the (original) skepdic article (i.e., without the extra links and counterpoints). (I encouraged you to chronicle that in my very first message to your talk page, which contains a reading list) Arbor 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just sent him a note to consider changing it to this page. He cites me in one of his other entries, and he is very good about clarity and precision. Jokestress 20:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&oldid=20497863"