Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 90

Archive 85

←

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

Archive 95

Use of xxxers as reliable sources

It is not appropriate to use xxxers such as Murry, Ruston and Jensen as uncontroversially reliable sources. Specifically, this includes text sourced only to xxxers, with no caveat that they are a tiny minority. This must not continue - individuals editing who are followers of xxxers should not be reverting the fringe beliefs of their leaders into this article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that this exact issue is clearly delineated in the Arbitration findings of fact 1.1.iii: (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources. [1]. Disruptive editing over this issue is certainly subject to discretionary sanctions. This of course applies to all editors large and small. These researchers are widely recognized as controversial, and the weight given to them in the article is currently undue. Constructive suggestions on how to source content to superior sources, or otherwise address the weight given to them, would be greatly helpful. aprock (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Victor keeps telling me to discuss on the talk page - but he's not discussing, just reverting. What am I to do? Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When faced with the sort of disruption that Victor is engaging in I think the next obvious step is to note why you think the changes you made were warranted on the talk page. I personally haven't looked at any of the changes yet, but if you're making changes in an effort to address 1.1.iii, then I think you're more likely to find general support on the talk page than gatekeeping. aprock (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I am. I would appreciate further review of my edits. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, if you going to make a major change to the article, propose it on the talk page first, giving your reasons.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Review WP:BOLD. Please address the issue, which is the massive overweight given to Jensen and Rushton, and what can be done to lessen it. You must acknowledge they are a minority of researchers, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Jensen and Rushton are major participants in the scientific debate. Jensen is by far the most famous and influential scientist to have researched the topic. Much of the anti-hereditarian research has been conducted explicitly to address the views of Jensen, Rushton, Murray, and other hereditarians. James Flynn, for example, has cited Jensen as a major inspiration in his career. Much of Nisbett's research directly addresses Jensen and Rushton's. The views of Jensen, Rushton et al. should be discussed in the article to the extent that they are present in reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not merely count articles - instead, we weigh in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Jensen, Rushton, Murray et al's viewpoints are not prominent - they are discarded as fringe by the vast majority of research - of this you are aware. They, themselves are prominent, mostly for being discarded as scientific racists. They cannot continue to take up the majority of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The APA

The APA statement includes "There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." Victor has removed this from the article multiple times. I don't think it's appropriate to remove this from the article and would like to understand why he is removing it. Why are you removing it? Hipocrite (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The APA report concludes that the cause(s) of the gap are presently unknown. You misrepresented[2] the report by writing that the APA agrees with Nisbett that genetic contributions are nil. Moreover, could you quote Flynn to the effect that genes don't contribute to the gap at all ("nil")?--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My most recent revision does not include Flynn as saying anything - only you did that, and then promptly questioned yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I directly quoted the APA. How does my direct quote misrepresent them? I conclude that I don't know what I'll be having for lunch, but I will DEFINITELY not be having steak. Will I be having steak for lunch? You'd argue we don't know. Hipocrite (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The article currently reads "Scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association[116] argue that the genetic contribution to the gaps (not to individual IQ) is nil", citing Flynn (a whole book, no page number) as one of the sources. Again, what does Flynn actually say?

Yes, a direct quote misrepresents a source if it is taken out of context. It is a misrepresentation to say that the APA report agrees with Nisbett. It clearly doesn't.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Article does not currently say that. I didn't include the citation to Flynn - it predates me. I'll certainly figure out who added it and ask them. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Victor has again provided specific attribution to Nisbett. This is not appropriate, as he is additionally supported by the AAA statement. Please carefully review WP:ITA. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The hypothesis that genes contribute to racial IQ gaps is not "fringe science". It is treated as a credible theory in reliable mainstream sources -- in, for example, Earl Hunt's "Human Intelligence", a textbook published this year by the noted fringe publisher Cambridge University Press. A large survey of behavioral scientists in the 1980s indicated that hereditarianism was the mainstream view among scientists, while the strong environmentalist view was supported by relatively few people. You cannot say that Nisbett's specific views are the same as those of unnamed other scientists.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this section. Please try to keep up, or at least stop reverting. We are discussing your constant reversion of "Scientists" to "Richard Nisbett," even though Richard Nisbett is agreed with by the major professional organization the American Anthropological Association, making specific attribution there inappropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not reverting. I am correcting errors based on discussion. You claimed that WP:ITA is relevant here, while it clearly isn't. Nisbett and the AAA statement are different entities. When you cite Nisbett and the AAA statement, you mention them, not any weasel words. Now, labels such as hereditarian and environmentalist are potentially useful here, but they should be used evenhandedly.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume given that I found a series of other individuals commenting that there is no genetic basis for race that you're comfortable with the sentence as it currently stands? Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been fully protected three days per the result of WP:AN3#User:Victor Chmara reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: Protected). The long-term edit warring on this page may possibly need to be addressed by more stringent measures, like a permanent WP:1RR restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Regression toward the mean section

The Regression toward the mean section is massively overweighted towards the minority views of Rushton and Jensen. Rushton is not a reliable source with respect to genetics, generally - he is discarded as fringe by multiple reliable sources. Jensen alone is merely a pariah of the field. There is no reason to have merely one sentence by Nisbett that cherry picks what he actually says surrounded by multiple comments by Jensen and Rushton. Unless someone can rewrite this section to be appropriately weighted, I suggest we remove it in it's entirety. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the undue nature of the section. The topic and conclusions are really only promulgated by Rushton and Jensen, and there is no evidence that the field as a whole considers the topic in any way relevant. This specific topic rates quite low in the realm of things that should be covered, and yet receives coverage in this and other articles, like Heritability of IQ. Nisbett's summary of the topic is even more evidence that it doesn't merit coverage here. Previous versions of this content [3] have been an utter mess of synthesis and original research, in no small part because there is little academic work of note on the topic. In truth, the section is just another indirect statistical argument for the hereditarian viewpoint. I fully support removing it from this article and Heritability of IQ as undue unless robust independent secondary sources can be found which weight the topic as prominently. aprock (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll also add that the previous RfC on the topic [4], is also pretty clear that the content doesn't merit inclusion, though some of the content might make sense in the Heritability article. aprock (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Way too much of the article takes this back and forth approach, tit for tat, argument by argument, usually constructed something like this: "the hereditarians say X. Nisbett says X-not." Of course that approach lends too much weight to the views-the framework of the article is too much built around their views while everything else is reduced to a rebuttal. (Note how many footnotes point to Nisbett's appendix! It's a full 300 page book on the topic, so why is it just where he rebuts the Bell Curve in the appendix that he's given the most attention here-16 footnotes?)

This claim, btw, it's not just coming Jensen/Rushton, but Eysenck and Murray/Herrnstein - along with many other hereditarians - they also make this argument. By the same token, it's not just Nisbett challenging it, but many others accuse of them committing the regression to the mean fallacy, that the statistic simply predicts outcomes and does not identify any particular causation. Jensen's more consistently a reliable source for these views, while a lot of Rushton's more "out-there" work is way out at the fringes of the fringe. But Jensen is not the mainstream position in the race/intelligence issue. He's the most dominant figure in one area, a subset of the larger issue, this "the racial gap in IQ is caused by genetics" part. Since it is one of (dozen?-need to look it up) items of evidence he cites in supporting the hereditarian hypothesis, that might be a better way to handle it. One section should here should be devoted to describing the hereditarian hypothesis and the evidence cited for it. It looms too large now.

How I see the topic handled in sources overall is that they identify there is an IQ gap, that to varying degrees this troubles policy makers of one kind or another, and social and educational policy makers have for some time worked to close it. Now and then researchers have advanced various theories about what causes the gap, and the hereditarian hypothesis is just one of them. The environmental hypothesis isn't really one. Instead there are many hypotheses - such as nutrition, unequal access to education, socio-economic disparity, race prejudice, family environment etc - lots of hypotheses involving a whole host of different causes that can be categorized as environmental. And they get a lot more attention, with policy makers anyway. So maybe if the over-all outline were firmed up better here, then the undue weight problem might be resolved. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the whole back and forth aspect is largely contrived by those who would establish the genetic causes as having parity with environmental causes. In fact, the broad organization of the article isn't so much of a tit-for-tat as, present all the arguments and research of hereditarian researchers, and present little to none of the broader community of science. Most of the mainstream work is done in the context of achievement gap, but none of that work is presented here. This is in no small part due to proponents of hereditarian researchers framing not just the structure of the article, but of the topic in general. Discussing IQ in a vacuum is essentially playing up specific achievement differences and ignoring others. You even see this more starkly on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence where it's not really IQ that is discussed, but verbal IQ. aprock (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the most basic issue with the article is how it's divided up into hereditarian vs. environmental arguments. As Professor Marginalia said, the environmental hypothesis is really many different hypotheses. Not all hereditarians agree with one another either - for example Murray and Herrnstein take a different perspective about some things than Jensen and Rushton. And there are people like Earl Hunt who disagree with some parts of both positions.

I think by dividing most of the article into "potential environmental causes" vs. "genetic arguments" we're oversimplifying the issue. In addition it seems like an original research problem. For example who gets to decide that racial admixture studies are a "genetic argument"? Studies such as Witty and Jenkins are often discussed as evidence that ancestry doesn't affect IQ, so this is as much an environmental argument as a genetic one. I suggest combining the "potential environmental causes" and "genetic arguments" sections into one section with a neutral title such as "debate overview". We can work on improving neutrality of individual topics as well.Boothello (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Who gets to say?" Ok, we don't write the article to describe study after study done in primary research, so your question shouldn't apply anyway. The article should be based on secondary sources, and the broader the better. As in textbooks, so long as they're fairly current. The hypothesis that the IQ gap is determined mostly by genetics is tested with racial admixture studies. The "who decided" this, the "who decided" which hypothesis a study pertains to, will usually be given in the study itself. But more importantly, we look at what the secondary sources "decided". And your example is a strange one to me. What else but a genetic connection would an "racial admixture study" seek to assess in this context? Scientists don't conduct "racial admixture studies" to ask questions like whether test prep or vitamin supplements improve IQ scores. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The "racial admixture studies" section is mostly based on a chapter by John C. Loehlin in the Handbook of Intelligence, a secondary source. Loehlin says the results of the Witty and Jenkins study do not appear to be genetic, because the study shows that high-IQ black people don't have an above-average degree of european ancestry. So this is a racial admixture study that argues for an environmental cause of the IQ gap and not a genetic one. But Loehlin says there are other racial admixture studies that suggest a genetic difference, and that none of the studies are conclusive. His eventual conclusion is just that more research is needed before the question can be answered for sure. This is a reason why it's a bad idea to label this as either a "genetic argument" or an "environmental argument". Loehlin says there are racial admixture studies that argue for both conclusions, and he doesn't take a strong stand in either direction about which is correct.Boothello (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is absolutely false. It couldn't be more clear. Quote: "The basic idea is simple: Individuals, all considered African Americans, vary widely in the proportion of their genes that came from European ancestors. If (a) there is an appreciable difference between Europeans and Africans in the frequencies of genes influencing intelligence, favoring Europeans and if (b) the genes affecting intelligence act in a straightforward fashion and if (c) the genes derived from African and European ancestors are reasonably representative of their ancestral gene pools, then African Americans who have more genes derived from European ancestors will score higher on measures of intelligence than African Americans who have fewer genes derived from European ancestors." This racial admixture test is a test of genetic cause, not environment. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding, the way you have framed the conclusion above, as if "racial admixture" studies are used to judge environmental hypotheses, is an example of the problems with how this article is put together, as if the topic itself were reducible to this. It's casting every study, every aspect of this issue, into a falsely dichotomous either/or between "genes" and "not genes". Professor marginalia (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see where we're disagreeing. You're right that Loehlin says racial admixture studies are a test of the genetic hypothesis. But saying they're a test of the genetic hypothesis isn't the same as saying they're an argument in favor of it. When a hypothesis is tested, the results can be either consistent with the hypothesis or inconsistent with it. And if the results of the test are inconsistent with the hypothesis, that's an argument against the hypothesis, not in favor of it. I'd be fine with calling racial admixture studies a test of the genetic hypothesis, but not with calling them an argument in favor of it. According to Loehlin, even though they're a test of the genetic hypothesis, the results don't clearly argue in favor of either the genetic or the environmental hypothesis.

Your second point is basically what I was saying. I don't think the whole topic should be reduced to "genetic arguments" vs. "environmental arguments" because it's far more nuanced than that. That's why I'd like to do away with those labels.Boothello (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The only time I mentioned "argument in favor of" that I recall here was in connection with the "regression to the mean" and it very clearly is one of this dozen-ish bits of evidence Jensen and Rushton cite as "arguments in favor of" genetic causes of the IQ gap. They are very structured in putting the argument together, in fact. And the regression to the mean has no relevance outside a hypothesis, and I don't know that anybody else citing it for another one. All I recall seeing are objections to it because it's a statistic that can't imply or identify causation of any kind. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. I'm just saying the article currently labels racial admixture studies as a "genetic argument", and it shouldn't. And that's because: even though secondary sources consider these studies a test of the genetic hypothesis, they don't consider it an argument in favor of that hypothesis, so calling it a "genetic argument" doesn't match what secondary sources say. Several other sections that are currently labeled as either possible environmental effects or genetic arguments have the same issue. Many of these aren't clearly categorized as one or the other by secondary sources. When I'm objecting to things being called arguments in favor of the genetic hypothesis, my disagreement isn't with you, it's with the article's current structure.

I'm proposing both of these sections should be combined into one section titled something like "debate overview". The article currently presents a false dichotomy between studies that argue for "genes" and studies that argue for "not genes", and my proposal would fix that. You just said above that this false dichotomy is a problem, and I agree. Do you not think my proposal to fix this is is a good idea?Boothello (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Racial admixture studies are used in arguing genetic causes. Like Witty/Jencks, racial admixture studies can also be used arguing against genetic causes-if the study shows no effect. They are not used to argue for any environmental causes. But just as you don't consider studies about stereotype threat to argue about nutritional causes, you don't use racial admixture studies to argue for or against nutritional, stereotype threat or other environmental causes. There are lots of causes proposed-genetics is one of them. Racial admixture studies, regression to the mean, etc--they are not *causes*. They are evidence used to show genetic cause. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You know, it's been a long time since I've looked at the article and I am shocked how bad the problem is. In terms of sheer space alone the content given over to discussing the arguments for genetic cause is so dominant everything else is reduced in scale such that it almost seems like they're just odds and ends, the "off-off-off Broadway" bits. Rushton alone is mentioned in the text, by name, an unbelievable 28 times...which is more than Nisbett and Flynn combined. Jensen is mentioned 32 times by name. And nobody else comes even remotely close. And most of the time it's like the work by "everybody else" takes a back seat as the spotlight's put on what they've said about the work of Jensen and Rushton. It needs so much work. Sigh. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The poor shape is largely due to the editing of Miradre who was temporarily topic banned under WP:ARBR&I. That no one stepped up to address the problematic edits speaks to the fatigue that editors have been having. aprock (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The dispute's almost as old as wikipedia, and the climate here can be like editing in quicksand. It's a battlefield. The futility of it all wears after awhile, and uninvested editors can only take so much before the eyes blur, tinnitus sets in, the nausea triggered even coming here, and a weariness that turns editors old before their time. While the freshly recruited SPA keep popping up here like they're dispensed from a vending machine. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions to lessen the round-and-round to nowhere

Reading thru the talk page, a few ideas popped into my brain that might help cut down on the unproductive "noise" traded back and forth.

1. Take more care tossing the term "fringe". Not everyone or everything published in the so-called "hereditarian" camp can be dismissed so easily.
2. Take more care to stick to what sources say. When a source makes a claim about IQ, or race, or genes--that doesn't mean we are free to use those claims like bridges to construct another claim about IQ, or race, or genes. Gene differences do not mean race differences. Genetic correlations with IQ in individuals do not suffice in making claims about genetic causes behind the racial IQ gap. Similarly, lack of a genetic basis for race does not mean genes cannot explain the racial IQ gap. If a statement says that the evidence is inconclusive about X, Y or Z that does not mean that the statement can be elastically applied to A, B or C.
3. Take care-there are no shortcuts to NPOV. It is important to put claims and studies in their rightful, proper context, with weight given them. We can't do this by simply, and lazily, editorializing via qualifiers of the claims and studies. And the incessant back-and-forthing every single hypothesis, study, and finding in this silly ping-pong of yea-sayers and naysayers is not NPOV. It's insane.
4. And stop already with the reverts if you've no other reason to offer than "no consensus for this change". A revert is not meant to be a VETO! There are no "consensus first" cops on wikipedia. If you revert, have a valid justification besides "didn't get approval first". OK? It's ridiculous that editors spend hours of their lives thrashing over the impropriety of some process instead of the quality of an edit itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

These are good suggestions. I've thought for a while that the article is in bad shape, but nobody's made a devoted and concerted effort to improve it. It was such a big task I just never knew where to start (I'm guessing others felt the same). Instead there were a lot of halfhearted attempts to fix the article with editorials and qualifiers as referenced in your point #3, which IMO just made things worse and led to edit wars. I'll likely soon be forced to take a break from this article, but it'd be great if you can make it more balanced and stable. I hope Maunus and Victor Chmara continue to stick around too, because they both know a lot about this topic and can help a lot with improving the article. Maybe whenever I come back the article will be in better shape than when I left it.Boothello (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Last ¶ of lede

Made more general, comprehensive, able to have easily sourceable support added. The first alternative should have genetic, heritable factors combined with cultural/epigenetic ones, but leaving that for the editors supplying such support. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My comment on the fracas here, suggestion for resolution. That there are effective group differences is far beyond dispute. Suggest you just cull everything that goes beyond reporting those objective facts. A really unfortunate complication is that some academics who have made a career on the topic are in fact racists. Nonetheless, the phenomenon in question is so heavily documented that it would be easy to redact their contributions to a small mention instead of a pervasive viewpoint. My position on the topic in the "Form" section of my POV page. Lycurgus (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Caste-like minorities

How much of this is supported by fact if there doesn't really seem to be conclusive data according to the referenced material? I don't know for all minorities but have read several reports mentioning that for example the Flemish in Belgium at the present time have an IQ a bit over 100 (some mention 105-108) and the Wallonian part slightly under 100. In the beginning of the 1900's the situation might have been reversed though when oppression was worse than today. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.67.45 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Race

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's a race anyway? One thing abundantly clear is that some types of people are brighter than others, and the genetic basis is plain obvious. Roma gypsies for example. While hostile statements about broad groups is not fashionable, the fact is that Roma gypsies tend to have low intelligence and engage in criminal behaviour. If there's no genetic basis for this then there's no genetic basis for Roma gypsies as a distinct group - it's who they are. 89.176.34.187 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

collapse per WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"A number of scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association,[2] reject any genetic contribution to the black-white gap, or to any difference amongst races." These are often the same "researchers" that have hidden political motives. Often times people of this view point say the same about longevity and disease, that they are both only influenced by environmental factors and no genetic evidence is present. There are thousands of peer reviewed medical journals showing that when environment is taken into consideration there are persisting inequalities between races in longevity, general health and intelligence. The worst thing one can do is pretend too different things are equal. 108.32.119.145 (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Regression toward the mean section (take two)

The section is based entirely on primary sources from Rusthon, and does not represent anyone's opinion besides his own. Reading the Nisbett source only supports that conclusion. Including the view is entirely unjustified by the sources. aprock (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose removal You should go and try and find some other sources about it then. You have not produced anything to support your argument, it is a Wikipedia editor against a cited source at the moment. Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done so, and come up empty. The idea that you would insist on inclusion of undue material until other editors can dredge up something is nothing but disruptive. I'll take this moment to highlight the finding of fact from the arbitration: The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources. At first blush, it appears that you're pursuing (iii), while pushing the envelope on (ii). It may be that you're trying to be constructive. If so, I suggest you consider a different tack beyond reverting and demanding non-existent or hard to find sources from other editors. aprock (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't see yourself as coming under (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; when you delete cited sources without giving any verifiable reason? Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Diffs please. aprock (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[5] point of view pushing.

[6] edit warring

I don't see how pretending things don't exist is a good way to write an encyclopaedia. And as to the point of view pushing this is of peripheral interest to me and I know you'll be here long after I'm gone still doing your thing to it and you'll get your changes in by sheer persistence. The most I can do is try and point out that what you are doing is not how everybody on Wikipedia thinks things should be done. see below Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - specifically, attributing actions to Aprock that were actually taken by me. Can you not tell the difference between us? Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right I didn't distinguish between the two of you. Very sorry about that, should have checked the history better.

Anyway as far as the section is concerned do you really think that not finding stuff giving an opposing side is a good reason for deleting it? As I said it is not as though very few people are interested in the topic. The policy about POV says various ways it might be rephrased to show it is a partisan view and probably some of it could be removed but is burying one's head in the sand really the way to develop an encyclopaedia that prides itself in not being censored? Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support removal per Aprock's argument. The only secondary source in the section is Nisbett, which does indicate that these are primary sources of marginal relevance. So it's a simple violation of WP:PRIMARY. To Dmcq, please note that the burden of proof is on those adding contentious material. So actually, you're the one who needs to "go and try and find some other sources about it then", not others. Nevermind on Dmcq's general confusion as to editors identities and motives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  WP:BURDEN is about verification. Burden has been satisfied. Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  Are you saying by PRIMARY that none of the sources are peer reviewed? If that's so then that would be a reasonable basis for removal. Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  'Primary' means exactly what it says: "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided". The 'Regression toward the mean' section seems to be based purely on primary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  Are you saying peer reviewed sources are primary or are you saying the sources are not peer reviewed or what? Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  Of course a peer reviewed source can be primary. In the case of scientific research, almost al primary sources are peer reviewed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from. It really needs a secondary source that talks about it to show that it is worth including and give some secondary view. Okay so I just tried out google scholar with "Educability and Group Differences" +Jensen "regression to the mean" and got about 35 results back a number of which do look like secondary sources talking specifically about this. Some sources amongst these are the sort of thing you think are needed is that it? Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Potentially. Can you provide some actual text or at least a link to one of these sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I just tried having a look and I can't access many because I don't have access. There's a number by Rushton and Jensen which are accessible but they just back each other up. I think a couple by Flynn though seem to discuss the topic a bit and do show notability. It really needs someone with better access as just getting stuff that is publicly accessible isn't a good selection criterion. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the articles this search finds seem likewise to be primary - what we need is something like this: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research". For example, your search finds an article entitled "Fallacious Use of Regression Effects in The I.Q. Controversy" [7]. From the abstract, it seems to argue that "regression to the mean" in relation to I.Q. is a statistical artefact, and the conclusions drawn regarding 'racial differences' are thus invalid, and a misuse of statistics. Now,a review article that discussed both Rushton's and this paper, within the broader context of the debate, would be a secondary source. (incidentally, this particular abstract mentions Eysenck and Jensen, but not Rushton - so we don't know the extent to which it actually relates to Rushton's particular argument at all). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to be difficulty finding secondary sources for this section, so another secondary source I recommend using is Flynn (1980). I think the most notable perspectives about this are Jensen and Flynn (Rushton and Nisbett are just summarizing Jensen and Flynn's earlier arguments). I oppose removing the section but I support adding Flynn to make the section more balanced.Boothello (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you get topic banned from race and intelligence topics?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe so. R&I topic bans are logged here, my name isn't listed there. Hipocrite tried to get me topic banned at AE, but the thread was closed with no conclusion. I hadn't realized before that being an SPA is in itself grounds for a topic ban, so starting now I'm going to broaden my interests at Wikipedia to avoid that.Boothello (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think characterizing that AE discussion as "closed with no conclusion" is accurate. All three admins in the results section supported a topic ban so a conclusion was in fact reached. It just didn't get implemented cuz you pulled the "I'm leaving Wikipedia" trick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This "Regression to the mean" section isn't undue weight by itself, but a manifestation of a larger problem with the article. The "Regression to the mean" is one of ten (10) categories of evidence that Rushton and Jensen cite in support of their thesis the gap is primarily genetic in origin. (When Rushton and Jensen aren't publishing jointly, they're citing each others' - and their own works - exhaustively. They receive less thorough attention in more independent secondary sources.) And I'm not sure there's a case to be made that some of these 10 are more relevant to describe here than the others since they explicitly discuss them as a set when defending the thesis. The problem is that these two (Jensen and Rushton) tend to dominate the whole article, not merely a subsection devoted to their own arguments supporting their hereditarian hypothesis. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I ran your google search, and also got 35 hits. I reviewed each of the 35 (that's a step you skipped. Please don't do that).

1. Jensen - no
2. Rushton - no
3. Rushton - no
4. Mackkenzie - "The assumption that these factors are relevant and that they support a genetic account is criticized as a "hereditarian fallacy.""
5. Jensen - no
6. Brody - "In this paper I review the evidence [Jensen] cites in support of this hypothesis and I explain why I do not find it persuasive."
7. Rushton - no
8. Dickens - I reviewed his summary at [8]. "How could solid evidence show both that environment was so feeble (kinship studies) and yet so potent (IQ gains over time)? Dickens has proposed a model that we believe solves the paradox. It assumes that people who have an advantage for a particular trait will become matched with superior environments for that trait; and that genes can derive a great advantage from this because genetic differences are persistent."
9. Vetta - 1977
10. Tizard - 1976
11. Murray - no
12. Munsinger - "Any study that compares the central tendency of adopted children's IQs with a group mean of 100 IQ points for a normal population cannot be taken seriously until several methodological criteria have been met ... careful attention to early separation and placement of children, and (e) elimination of practice effects and regression to the mean artifacts."
13. Mackenzie - "Regression to the population mean in I.Q. scores has been taken by H.J. Eysenck, A.R. Jensen, and other writers to provide evidence for genetic determination of individual and racial I.Q. differences. However, regression is a purely statistical phenomenon, and as such provides no evidence for either genetic or environmental determination of I.Q. "
14. Rushton - no
15. Block - 1974
16. Weiss - at [9] - "Hence we can characterize regression to the mean as a consequence of error of measurement; in our case here simply as error of classification. In pure homozygote genetic crosses, and not considering the effects of minor genes, there should be no regression to the mean." and "(compare Jensen, 1973, p. 171, showing the distribution of the Terman gifted offspring, in which case, considering a cut-off score of IQ 140 for one parent, a heavy regression to the mean could be expected, because according to major gene theory, IQ values above 130 have the same genetic true score as the IQ 130 itself.)"
17. Nichols - 1978
18. Rushton - no
19. Horn - "Regression to the mean of high or low measure of IQ in one class of people (e.g., children) relative to similar measure on another class of people (e.g., parents), does not support claims that the measures are genetically determined (nor does it threaten such a theory)."
20. Jensen - no
21. Flynn - "(4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 SDs (3×.33=1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that."
22. Vernon - "But in fact regression to the mean is merely a necessary consequence whenever two sets of scores, such as parent and offspring IQs, are imperfectly correlated."
23. Rushton - no
24. Goldsmith - no access
25. Collingridge - no access
26. Vining - No mention (false search duplicates follow:)
27. Kaplan - duplicate
28. Nurcombe - "Normal distribution and regression are therefore consistent with the genetic theory of intelligence"
29. Daly - duplicate
30. Kurland - duplicate
31. Flynn - duplicate
32. Weinrich - duplicate
33. Macphail - duplicate
34. Sternberg - duplicate
35. Williams - duplicate

So, what exactly are we supposed to talk about, except for "Jensen said something, everyone knows he's wrong?" Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that is exactly what the complaint was about in the first place wasn't it that there weren't mainstream sources to balance the stuff? Now you've got some. That's far better than just ignoring notable stuff by removing it isn't it? Dmcq (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Any attempt to balance this article swiftly results in edit warring. You will see, shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This may help some, but it's still not enough imo. Regression to the mean is a significant line of argument for Jensen and Rushton-whose position is probably notable enough to describe here. But's how the argument is presented - and cited - which is all wrong, giving it undue weight. And it's just one of many examples. I've said this before here, but the "Jensen sez and Nisbett sez not so" - I think this style of presentation is contributing to the UNDUE weight to the minority povs here. But why does this argument warrants its own section anyway? (Besides-it's very confusingly written.) Professor marginalia (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It could be chopped down to just summarize the bits that anybody else has noticed without any great loss I think. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fringe tag

An editor has removed the fringe tag from this article. I find this problematic, as on it's face, this article massively overweights the fringe views of one J. Philippe Rushton. Hipocrite (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should not have both a point of view tag and a fringe tag, that's just tag bombing with the same sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Rushton's views, such as they appear in reputable academic publications (aka reliable sources), are not "fringe". Some editors seem to think that the definition of a fringe view is "something I disagree with". That's not quite enough.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. This is not done. Hipocrite (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article already has loads of NPOV tags in it. FRINGE is just a subset of NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, that's fine, but trying to say there's not a FRINGE problem is a different argument than "this tag is duplication." I'm not finding fault with duplication, I'm finding fault with "no fringe problem." Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You also deleted cited material. NPOIV is not a reason in itself to deleted cited material, it is a reason to look around for something to balance it. I don't think deleting things at random so you get some percentage of rightness of balance is a course supported by policy. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Cited" is not enough for inclusion. You've demonstrated how FRINGE is a unique problem here - Rushton writes something in a journal or a book, it's totally ignored by the mainstream, and it goes in our article. Because Rushton is ignored by the mainstream (you know, because they think he's just a racist), there's no balance to be had, but because you can verify that he said it, you put it in. That's a FRINGE violation. If you were giving the fringe views on "Regression toward the mean" due weight, they would not be in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's quite enough psychologists around interested in this stuff to write refutations. It isn't as this is something scientists are uninterested in like UFOs or telepathy. Just removing stuff when a search should be made for balance does not strike me as right. Have you evidence for what you say? Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Review the section above, titled "Regression toward the mean section." This is exactly like something that scientists are uninterested in - more specifically, review what Professor marginalia wrote at 18:00, 14 December 2011 and 00:54, 16 December 2011 about how the entire approach to the article (which is written as a he-said-she-said between the far-fringe and everyone else) needs to be completely redone. Would you be amenable to reverting the article to the pre-Miradre version? Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you just proved yourself wrong, below. Contrary to what you claimed, dozens of researchers have been interested in the regression to the mean argument. Rushton is a tenured professor who has published extensively in mainstream, peer-reviewed academic journals. His articles have been cited thousands of times, and he sits on the editorial board of the leading specialist journal in the field of intelligence research. Your "fringe views" argument is nonsensical.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Things are being confused again. Although the section is so badly written one can't know without for sure what was intended there, the "regression to the mean" is clearly from Jensen and Rushton's list of 10 categories of evidence-it's a particular regression to the mean argument in that context. Regression to the mean discussions also appear in Jensen for different kinds of analysis besides his "10 categories of evidence". But it's inappropriate to view it as a catch-all for every regression to the mean analysis ever performed in studies pertaining to this topic. Quick google searches are going to #fail for this reason. But as debates rage over whether or not the section should be tagged or improved with more content from naysayers, I'd like to hear a sensible case for keeping any of it there as it's written now. It's garbled gibberish. Professor marginalia (talk)

In the context of race and IQ research, what other regression to the mean arguments are there besides the one about blacks regressing toward a lower mean than whites? Jensen first proposed it in the late 1960s, I think, and it has always been the one and same argument. Flynn discusses this specific argument in his 1980 book, as do many of the sources cited by Hipocrite, and Jensen & Rushton discuss it in their 2005 review article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That isn't what the article says, and it isn't what Jensen says. And regression to the mean is used for all kinds of analysis-including all kinds of connections with this topic! Flynn looked at them in context of the generational rise in scores. Jencks and Phillips used them to illustrate pitfalls in analyzing the IQ gap shifts longitudinally, as test subjects grow older. These aren't all. It's a common analysis used for variation from purely random outliers too. Jensen uses it in his 10 categories of evidence for a particular analysis derived (it looks to me) from Galton's regression to the mean in height inheritance. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Regression toward the mean of course applies to all sorts of data, but to my knowledge there is only this particular argument from Jensen about regression toward the mean when it comes to race differences in IQ. What he did was that he matched a sample of whites and blacks for an IQ of 120, and then looked at the mean scores of the siblings of those subjects, finding that the white sibling average was 113, while the black sibling average was 99. Jensen argues that no purely environmental theory could have predicted this result, even if ex post facto environmental explanations have been offered for it. He discusses this argument also on pp. 470-471 of The g Factor. All this could be explained more clearly in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please find an independent secondary source that lists Rushton's line of "regression to the mean" reasoning as particularly relevant to the race and intelligence debates? So far all we have is Rushton and fellow Pioneer Fund grantees promoting this, and no one else. Is there anyone outside this clique of researchers who finds it in any way relevant? Is proper sourcing really too much to ask for here? aprock (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Victor Chmara - well at least two of the 18ish independent citations turned up in the google search allude to different iterations of the argument from Jensen over time. (Flynn's "no sane person" quotation is a paraphrase of a Jensen's claim, btw-in Flynn's "History of the debate" section.) The claim in the article says, "Jensen argues that if the average racial IQs are different, then due to regression toward the mean the average IQs of relatives to blacks and whites with the same IQ should be different." And that is not a significant claim he's making today, or being challenged on. Hello!! If the racial IQ gap were 100% environmental there would still be regression to the mean, and the only disagreement to the claim would come from those claiming the IQ gap itself is not real. Jensen doesn't claim that they "should" regress to different means today (as would be predicted if there were indeed two distinct means). He argues that because they regress to two different means that is evidence for genetic rather than environmental causes for the two different means. (The obfuscated "given" in this claim is some given IQ is genetic and given that it's polygenetic, where the potential effects of genetic recombination of IQ are more reasonable to "plug" than would be the potential effects of environmental "recombination".) So the article claim makes no sense as written, as a regression to the group mean finding. (As I said, same outcome would be predicted for 100% environmental causation).

@aprock The problem is whether or not that simply because Jensen/Rushton said it that makes it relevant. I think it does, given appropriate proportion, because although they are the in the minority as far as overall acceptance goes, they are the go-to authorities for this minority. I would agree that this argument of theirs is among those their critics dismiss most resoundingly, practically routinely. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not still not sure what other regression arguments you're talking about, marginalia. Anyway, whether the same outcome would result from purely environmental causes depends on the model of environmental causation one adopts. If your model is one where environmental effects perfectly mimic the "behavior" of additive heritability, then the same outcome is expected. If, on the other hand, the theory is (for example) that individual IQ differences are largely a function of differences in home environments and have no race-specific causes, then the expectation is not that the siblings of high-IQ (or low-IQ) whites and blacks regress toward different means. In any case, it's not our job to decide whether Jensen's argument is correct. What matters is that it's notable.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The point isn't whether or not Jensen's argument is correct. The point is that his argument isn't cogently described here. (And quoting Jensen himself, "But it cannot be regarded as a proof of a genetic difference between two populations, since the lower population of the Negro group, it could be claimed, is a result of a uniform environmental disadvantage or test bias in the Negro population...A strictly environmental explanation of the mean population difference is not ruled out by this evidence...It could be all environmental, or all genetic, or anything in between.") Professor marginalia (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I reckon any topic where the second sentence quite correctly says anything like "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia" is a very strong candidate for the label Fringe. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

closing per WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By that standard all the social sciences are "fringe", as are much of the life and physical sciences. The beauty of IQ research is, however, that IQ can be measured very reliably compared to most constructs in social science. Similarly, race, at least as far as the major races are concerned, can be very reliably operationalized in America.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I would support renaming the article to Race and IQ, but there has been a general resistance to that, so we're stuck with the caveat that intelligence is an ill defined concept. Even if we limit consideration to IQ, the tests are only as reliable as the methodology used, which for the most part has been poor at best. aprock (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC) "Poor at best"??? Compared to what? Atomic clocks?--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're referring to here, as atomic clocks are not a methodology. I'm referring to methodologies like non-uniform tests, arbitrary normalization techniques, using IQ proxies like verbal ability, and averaging scores of population groups. It would be one thing if researchers were exclusively using WAIS-III for data, but that is the exception, not the rule. aprock (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC) All IQ tests correlate highly with each other, and there are so much data from different sources, all showing the same trends, that those are not serious concerns. Why would averaging the IQ scores of all people in a group be any more problematic than averaging, for example, their personal incomes or heights? Douglas Detterman has nicely summarized the status of IQ research among the social sciences: Intelligence is the best-understood and most powerful variable in the social sciences. Sophisticated psychometric methods, developed largely for intelligence tests, are used to construct and assess modern tests. A substantial commercial industry has grown up around the development and sale of tests. Intelligence can be measured with better reliability than any other social science variable. Huge amounts of data have been collected using the tests and these data span the last century providing a database unavailable in most other areas in the social sciences. Data from individuals show strong relationships to many important social outcome measures including educational achievement, occupational success, income, and death, to name a few. The data collected also provide important information about the genetic, biological, and environmental origins of intelligence. Relationships at the country level have also been investigated showing that countries with higher mean IQs show a greater gross domestic product per person, are less religious, and show higher levels of democracy. In short, by any objective standard, intelligence is the social science success story of unrivaled proportions. --Victor Chmara (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Not having a clear idea what to do with this rabbit hole, I think it's time to collapse it. But I do thank you for your unique thoughts on averaging population scores as a viable methodology. aprock (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment!

People who watch this page ought to comment here on a race & IQ matter Slrubenstein | Talk 08:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews IQ

The problem with the studies that measured Ashkenazi Jews IQ is that they were often deemed to be unrepresentative of their population (because of the extremely small sample size or other reasons). Moreover, if you read Lynn's analysis which conclude that the Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ of 110, you'd realize that there are a lot of methodological problem with his analysis, one being that three of the studies being analyzed administered Verbal tests. Using the same logic, we'd conclude that women are more intelligent than men as they have higher verbal IQ than men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.21.221 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the Nobel laureates who are labelled as being "Jewish", sometimes happen to only have 1/4 Jewish ancestry and 3/4 European ancestry, which in my opinion doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.21.221 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Caste-like minorities

How much of this is supported by fact if there doesn't really seem to be conclusive data according to the referenced material? I don't know for all minorities but have read several reports mentioning that for example the Flemish in Belgium at the present time have an IQ a bit over 100 (some mention 105-108) and the Wallonian part slightly under 100. It has also been the richer part with less unemployment etc. for quite some time. In the beginning of the 1900's the situation might have been reversed though when oppression was worse than today and the elite was mainly French speaking. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.67.45 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC) The Flems are Germanic. All you need to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.230.124.139 (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Whattamess

I apologize in advance if this simply creates more drama, but ........... .

Disputes raging in this article went through arbitration, with a decision handed down in Aug 2010. As I compare the state of the article then to now I can't see any improvement. It strikes me as worse, if for no other reason than it's more far more confusing just trying to read it than before. It seems more "padded" with pointless who said what type empty assertions that don't really describe anything--because the content itself was omitted. Lots of this padding was window-dressing, so as to provide so-called "balance" (or appear to), so poorly sourced or described that either the editor didn't understand what s/he was reading or they were simply mechanistically trying to behave as a NPOV editor, going through the motions, with no real investment in authenticity. And surprise, surprise....more often than not the "revision history search" to identify claims and/or references that don't exactly jive point me to SPA editors and suspected proxies.

I'm just a part-time part-timer on wikipedia. It takes me HOURS of work sometimes to verifiably eliminate bunkerooney pumped in articles-the "diversionary" bunkerooney from SPA to pretty up edit histories just makes the problem worse.

I don't know how this is fixable unless every editor here is on alert to double check whenever possible the cited sources and to be extra vigilant to the proxies. The proxies have made the problem worse because they consume so much time! Professor marginalia (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree and sympathize. To fix this article would take a lot of time, which I, nor apparently others, have at the moment. The thing that I've limited myself to doing for now is keeping an eye on things to prevent even more SPA nonsense from being added.VolunteerMarek 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the state of the article is a mess. My suggestion above ([10]) was to dump it and begin anew. If done, we should probably start with contemporary secondary sources (in the last 10 years) which handle the topic in some detail. I expect that sort of project will be met with significant resistance. Since arbitration, most of the work has been done by Miradre (talk · contribs) with some pruning back and copy editing by various editors. Very little has been done to the structure. aprock (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Examples: a new claim sourced with two refs, neither of them adequately verify the statement that I could see[11] The Nisbett cite was first introduced here,[12] then distorted further. (Bizarrely the same editor later attached the citation needed tag that's there now.) Nisbett did make arguments along those lines in his book-but not the appendix, which is the cite the article gives and links. And the Rushton/Jensen cite has just one extremely tangential passing mention, a very backhanded "we find it very hard to disagree" that school reforms should be based on successful experiments in teaching methods, only to turn right around and dismiss the effort as unlikely to make much difference anyway. So why use these cites here? I'll tell you why. Nisbett's book is completely passed over in this article while his appendix there has 15 citations-because it's in the appendix where Nisbett focuses on hereditarian claims. I don't think the editor's consulted the book at all. Just the appendix, and the Rushton/Jensen article rebutting the appendix which has been cited 16 times! Rushton/Jensen was used again here from sheer force of habit-as if Rushton/Jensen were the only views that really matter in the article anyway so why bother looking any further. There's fluff and dust like this throughout, trivializing the issues. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice Miradre hasn't contributed since 29th November. I argued a while ago against a load of articles they set up which I couldn't see the point of but I didn't manage to convince others about that. Perhaps there's some room for others to edit things a bit more now and lean things up a bit. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I, formerly known as Miadre, am live and editing. If anyone has any questions regarding the literature and my edits I would be happy answer them. To summarize, the question of genetics in racial IQ differences is unsolved and will likely be so until there is direct genetic testing which may not be that far in the future. In principle this is the only thing that needs to be said because I think few people are likely to want to learn more about the scientific disputes and if they do then they will learn that the issue is undecided. More interesting are actually the IQ differences themselves, and the practical effects these differences have, and implications for society, and how to affect known environmental factors such as nutrition and diseases, and how to help those with low IQ in an increasingly complex world. I think the article should concentrate on that.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

New Source

The new review article in American Psychologist

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012, January 2). Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0026699

summarizes a lot of the latest research. The article can be found in a sublink ("download article") at Scott Barry Kaufman's blog, which is good about posting full-text professional articles on psychology.

The edit-warring here has been appalling, but I still read on the subject, and I still meet weekly with the behavioral genetics seminar at the local state flagship university. I try to keep up with the literature and with the range of scholarly opinion on the issue. I'd be glad to help clean up the article, and have reviewed the suggestions currently visible on the talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be very helpful in shaping up the article, thanks. Besides offering a more up-to-date summary it could serve as a very useful model to follow in establishing what claims and studies merit mention here and how much weight to give them. It's worth noting that the review focuses on black-white and Asian-white IQ gaps given the quality of the studies available. Any real progress cleaning up the article has stalled because so much time gets sucked away on the little stuff. It consumes attention better spent focusing on the big problems, the fact that it's poorly structured, unwieldy, confusing, argumentative, and over stuffed with subsections, far too many of which are nothing but perfunctory and vacuous word fill. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A review by some non-hereditarians. As such it represents the POV of one side in the dispute. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this really the tack you want to be taking here? aprock (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To quote from the article: "See Rushton & Jensen, 2005a, 2005b, Gottfredson, 2005, and Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002, for the view that the Black–White IQ difference is owing substantially to genetic differences between the races and that indirect evidence having to do with such factors as reaction time and brain size is probative. See Nisbett, 2005, 2009, for the view that the direct evidence indicates that the difference between the races is entirely due to environmental factors and that the indirect evidence has little value." Nisbett is one of the authors of the article, together with several other arguing for no roll for genetics such as Flynn and Dickens. No partly-genetic proponent is included among the authors of the article. That does of course not prevent us from using the article as one source of views on the debate.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is very recent, but it will come to be judged in the usual way. And not by whether or not Rushton Jensen Gottfredson Lynn or Vanhanen had a hand in writing it. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It will be judged like other review article. Like those Nisbett has already written earlier. Or those Rushton and Jensen have written. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Radiolab on "The Obama Effect"

I recently listened to http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2009/jan/27/the-obama-effect-perhaps/ Which seems to explain quite a bit about this age-old controversy. Does anyone know where to find the peer reviewed research described at 6:30-7:45 and 8:30-8:45 in the recording? There is no doubt in my mind that this should be added to this article. 85.230.127.113 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure-see Race and intelligence#Stereotype threat). There's also the stand-alone article Stereotype threat better describing the studies. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Is there a URL or cite for this work, please? Meow Will Always Love You (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

With a hat tip to WeijiBaikeBianji and his notice of the update of the "knowns and unknowns" mentioned above, I'd focus on these it points to:

• Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797[13]
• Steele, C. M., Spencer, S., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Ad-Month 2012 ● American Psychologist 29 Avances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 379–440. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0[14]
• Aronson, J., & McGlone, M. (2009). Stereotype and social identity threat. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 153–178). New York, NY: Psychology Press.[15]
• Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systemically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x[16]
• Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2001). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African-American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491 [17]
• Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006, September 1). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307–1310. doi:10.1126/science.1128317 [18]
• Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development,78, 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x[19]
• Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002[20]
• Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African-American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491 [21]

There's a healthy launch anyway. It may be incomplete but I'm tired :) and we if we hesitated due to less-than-perfect around here nothing would ever get done. Professor marginalia (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

American Anthropological Association Statement in the Intro

Apart from this statement, has this organization done anything remotely to do with this debate? If not, should the statment even be mentioned, and if so how many times. (At present the number is 3.) Also, the statement seems out of place. It's located above the framing of the debate and summery of possible positions, which are surely vastly more important. 110.32.146.143 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. For people who complain about the lack of 'race' in the 'race and intelligence' article, there is a simple reason for it. No one disputes there are racial gaps in IQ, the question is their cause. Now IQ can be environmental, but race obviously can't, so thus the debate is on the cause of IQ differences, not on what the cause of people being different races are. I mention this because someone may say that the statement is needed to bring some anthropological opinion in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.146.143 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of anthropologists would dispute that there are racial gaps in IQ, not least because (as people who actually study the subject of 'race', rather than just making generalisations about it), they are aware that 'race' is a complex social construct, rather that a simplistic biological 'fact'. Actually, I suspect many would argue that the same can be said for 'intelligence' too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for "a lot of anthropologists would dispute that there are racial gaps in IQ"? 110.32.146.143 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I need one? Do you have a cite for "No one disputes there are racial gaps in IQ"? Actually, you can't have one (or at least, one that has any basis in reality), because I've just disputed it. The AAA likewise have disputed it, for that matter:

WHEREAS all human beings are members of one species, Homo sapiens, and

WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits),

THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people".

This looks clear enough to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a policy statement to me rather than a scientific statement so should be in he policy section. Policy is a very important part of the debate but yes one doesn't need to repeat. Their argument when applied to cats simply says that cats should be treated properly not that there aren't any Siamese cats. The scientific bit includes things like who is being compared to who, is there statistically significant difference and is it of a size that makes any real difference, what factors might affect any differences if any found, and rather importantly here are the studies being conducted properly. Policy includes what action should be taken of and difference or non difference results or should one just try suppressing any research in this area in the first place. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

'differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific' is a statement about science, not about policy. As for suggesting that the AAA is 'suppressing research', that is a ridiculous allegation, and frankly has no place whatsoever on a Wikipedia talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthropologists in different nations differ greatly in regards to race and the rejection by many US anthropologists is one end of the spectrum with anthropologists in many other nations being more supportive: [22] Even in the US, "forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races".[23] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In as much as your statement is true (which is difficult to determine from the abstract you present - which incidentally seems to refer only to 'physical anthropologists', and therefore tells us nothing particularly useful about the opinions of anthropologists in general), it is irrelevant. The OP argued that the opinions of the AAA had nothing to do with this debate, and that is just plain wrong. In as much as the concept of 'race' has any scientific credibility at all, it is as an anthropological concept, and to suggest that anthropologists opinions on the matter are irrelevant is nonsensical. Would you discount the opinions of geologists when discussing rocks?

The article should not be US-centric. A NPOV presentation should also mention the view of anthropologists outside the US as well as the opposing views by anthropologists inside the US. Furthermore, anthropologists are not the only ones with views on race. For example, a study of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the race concept. The study gives examples of how the textbooks claim that anatomical features vary between races. This was not appreciated by authors doing the study but it certainly shows that race is not rejected in anatomy.[24] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a source citing the opinions of anthropologists outside the US on the validity of 'race' as a useful concept in studies of variations in intelligence, we can of course consider it for inclusion in the article. What we cannot do is decide for ourselves what we think those opinions would be, based on what anatomists think regarding anatomy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was pointing out that the statement by AAA is not a scientific consensus among all anthropologists or other scientists. I agree with Dmcq that it looks like a policy statement. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you got any sources that suggest that regarding the subject of race and intelligence, there is no consensus amongst anthropologists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The rejection of race was the reason for rejecting race and intelligence in the quote you gave above. I am not aware of any survey that have asked anthropologists regarding racial differences in intelligence so the opinion of anthropologists on this is likely unknown. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of the AAA on this is known, and cited. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't cite the opinions of experts in a field solely because we don't know for sure whether other experts agree with them? This is going to make finding sources rather difficult... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems we are going in circles now. See my earlier replies. Let us see what others think. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. We have a cited notable fact. If there are other cited notable facts worth discussing, present them. That you don't like the cited notable fact is not a reason to remove it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What they were talking about was the repetition in detail in the lead, not about removing it entirely. Also whether it was a scientifivc finding or a policy statement. I consider it obviously a policy statement as scientific statements always talk about more research whereas this one is all about stopping anything like that never mind the actual contents are unscientific in tone and about a better society and then strangely talks about respecting diversity after basically saying there was no such thing. Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support compressing the three statements in the lead to read "professional associations reject that there is any documented genetic racial contribution to intelligence." Attempts to do this have been reverted by individuals who don't want this fact documented clearly. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support that with the condition that it's moved to the bottom of the intro at earliest, and the AAA statement is mentioned only once. On a related topic, isn't the 1988 survey as important, so perhaps the statements should just be in history or the survey should be in the intro. 110.32.158.162 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious (now) that this is not your first foray here. What earlier accounts have you used? I do not agree that this should be marginalized. Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's also clear up some mis-statements here. The AAA is homed in the US but its membership includes European, Asian, African, Australian, and Canadian and Latin American anthropologists. Anthropologists from around the world publish in AAA journals. The AAA does not issue policy statements, but like most scholars its members are educators as well as researchers and they do often issue statements and publish material meant to explain scientific findings to the general public, which certainly makes their statements very relevant and useful for this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1994 statement [25] does not cite any supporting scientific evidence and thus it is hard to argue that it is anything except a policy or political statement. Scientific statements cites evidence. Compare with the APA's statement regarding race and intelligence that did cite numerous sources. The APA's statement is scientific; the AAA's is not. A later 1998 statement [26] about race cited Lewontin's famous argument. However, this is proven wrong both theoretically (see, Lewontin's fallacy) and empirically (for example, see this study that found "essentially perfect" agreement between 51 self-reported populations of origin and their genetic pattern.[27] In other words, one can exactly determine a persons ancestral home from their genetic make-up. Or even simpler: people from a particular ancestral region have similar genetics that is different from that of people from other ancestral regions.) Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is pure conjecture. It is of no relevance whatsoever, as you well know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That the AAA race and intelligence statement does not cite any scientific evidence is not conjecture. That Leowontin's argument has been severely criticized on theoretical grounds and is empirically invalidated is not conjecture either. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is still irrelevant. The AAA issued their statement. They have not retracted it. It doesn't cite Lewontin (not that Lewontin has actually been "empirically invalidated" in any case). Your endless efforts to suggest that a leading body (with 11,000 members) are somehow unfit to comment on the very subject of their expertise (the reality of 'race' as a scientific concept) is nothing more than POV pushing of the most blatant kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent me. Obviously the AAA can issue a statement on this. I am just pointing out that neither of the two AAA statements cite any scientific sources unlike the APA's statement that did so in great detail. The later statement most likely refer to Lewontin's argument but if not then what is the evidence for the statement's claims is even less clear. Regarding the validity of Lewontin's argument, see the link and source given above. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The IPCC would look pretty silly if they said the world is warming but we won't give any sources! Even creationists point at the Bible. As science I think the AAA statement comes under argumentum ad lapidem. Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, will you actually address what I say rather than asking pointless questions about my background? Also, your final sentence is just a statement of your opinion without any reason for it. 110.32.128.125 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the nature and history of this topic area, Hipocrite's question is quite pertinent. I note that you evaded it.VolunteerMarek 10:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

None of these scientific position statements cite sources either.[28][29][30][31][32][33] The question to consider is whether or not AAA statement has notability. Obviously it does. For those that enjoy opinionating about the relative merits of the AAA and Lewontin, take it to a messageboard. This isn't a forum. And don't try to pull this again here, Acadēmica Orientālis. You've tried to shoehorn this elsewhere and it won't work this time either. These anatomy textbooks have absolutely no relevance to this topic. None. Professor marginalia (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The first one is a scientific opinion explicitly references the IPCC report and saying they agree with it. The second one references the National Research Council study. The third one, the AAAS resolution on Intelligent Design Theory, would be what I call a straightforward policy statement. The fourth one is also a policy statement though it does have a scientific opinion component in saying they agree with others that intelligent design is pseudoscience. The fifth by the AAA calls for more research into the problems. The sixth is interesting as the claim is that it represents mainstream science on intelligence, however there is no way to judge the weight since there is no listing of how many people were asked to sign it and refused, and quite unsurprisingly to me the whole business has been picked to death. Personally I would have called it a policy statement but it has a bit of science weight because of the personal signatures of the people as representing their scientific opinion. Note also the bit at the end about implications for social policy so it obviously was meant for that purpose.

We are expected to use some tiny amount of commonsense and trying to push things as being science when they obviously are not is simply not reasonabe. The statement about race and intelligence has some weight as a scientific opinion but it is obviously meant as a policy statement. It contradicts itself in talking about diversity so it contains doublethink where social policy is given higher precedence than dispassionate science. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dmcq. We aren't arbiters sitting in judgment of the quality of the AAA statement. We're Just Some Guys spending some of our spare time on the internet. The article now identifies the statement as the AAA's "official position", and has done for quite some time. I don't see much difference myself between calling it their "position" rather than their "statement". Obviously the "statement" communicates their "position". Our satisfaction with their science or citations, and/or lack of, is irrelevant. This is the AAA, after all, not some fringe outfit operating below the radar of the scientific mainstream. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we should mention it, but three times as is currently done in the article? And if mentioning it in the intro should we not also mention there that anthropologists both outside and inside the US disagree with it? There is also an one-sided dismissal of genetic cluster analysis which is simply wrong because current cluster and other statistical analysis can do what is supposed to be impossible: exactly determine a persons ancestral home from their genetic structure because the genetic structure from a particular ancestral region is systematically different from that of other ancestral regions. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Three times is hardly excessive, but the middle one (re ethics) should be eliminated. It doesn't source the claim it's attached to. And while I have no idea what you're referring to about now being able to supposedly "exactly determine ancestry", imo there may be too much space given to cluster analysis here now anyway. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind re the ethics cite. I see a second statement was attached as well. I'd leave it for now but I'll look for a third cite more assertively expressing the AAA's ethical stand in the study of race and intelligence. This one is bordering on synth there. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, how on earth is it relevant? I avoided it because answering encourages people to do so again, and thus go off topic. To go back to the issue at hand, has the AAA done ANYTHING to do with this debate apart from this statement? 110.32.128.125 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And we are under no obligation to consider a statement as a scientific opinion when its avowed aim is evident in 'Such discussions distract public and scholarly attention from and diminish support for the collective challenge to ensure equal opportunities for all people, regardless of ethnicity or phenotypic variation.' It is just wikilawyering to try and say we have to accept that as anything except a policy statement. Next we'll have a statement saying they want a better coffee machine called a scientific opinion. The AAPA statement is more the sort of thing you expect for a scientific opinion, I have big problems with it too just quoting an old UNESCO statement but at least it acknowledges some sort of reality. And they don't try and suppressd things but just say 'Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends', that is a policy statement but not an anti-scientific one. Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Can you find any sources that express the same one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a pointless discussion. I cannot see where in the AAA statement it says that it is a policy paper. And Dmcq, it is not for us to judge what is truth or reality. We report reliable sources and significant views; the statement of the AAA counts as both. Are you just here to soapbox? A bit of cheap advice: take a little break and read our NPOV and V and NOR policies, so you can learn how we decide on content here (which I will tell you already, is not based on an editor's personal opinion.) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is pointless. Nothing in what is written here is "obliging" anyone to conclude anything but that this is the position taken by the AAA. It isn't labeled a "scientific opinion" in the article, so let's be more careful before pointing fingers over wikilawyering. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether to include the statement. The question is why it should be mentioned three times and mentioned without the opposing views regarding race by for example anthropologists outside and inside the US in the intro. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an opposing view by Rushton and Jensen in their 2005 review: "Some have argued that the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate & Audette, 2001). However, we believe these constructs are meaningful because the empirical findings documented in this article have been confirmed across cultures and methodologies for decades. The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification."[34] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying I agree with Rushton, I am just saying that because one agrees with a statrement doesn't make it scientific. There are lots of other things that can be pointed at that are scientific other than the AAA statement. Just look at all the other statements in [[35]] by them. Statements on language rights, on human rights, the Cuban Trade Embago, disabilties, Ethics, it goes on and on. And the race statement draft was in a folder called advocacy-policy. They are in the main policy statements and there's no need for us to push their statement as science. There's loads other stuff to use for scientific points besides that. Wikipedia is not in the business of propaganda, we should just describe summarize things as they are. They can be summarized in the lead as far as 'm concerned but calling it scientific is just silliness. Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dmcq. I repeat. The lead doesn't say this is "scientific" rather than an AAA position statement, and unless you're willing to go so far as to disclaim it somehow as a "not scientific" or "propaganda" position, I don't know why we're still going on about it.

@Acadēmica Orientālis If there's one thing this article doesn't suffer from, it would be any lack of attention to what Rushton and Jensen have to say. Hunt and Carlson are already used to cite an argument much like this. The disagreement isn't really over the AAA's position rejecting the "existence of 'races" as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups." I doubt even Rushton or Jensen disagree with that statement. They differ on the degree to which the admittedly ambiguous and loosely demarcated racial categories are valid or meaningful when inferring or making assumptions about genotype. They also disagree about the potential or degree to which such research is misconstrued, misused, and other such ethical concerns. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I just said I was happy to have a statement about it in the lead, what I was saying was that the major other place it should be referred to is in the policy section, not as anything scientific. It is referred to in the lead as its official position which is something that is okay. Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the "Genetic arguments" section, I think the section lead there now should be redone regardless and the AAA is synth there anyway, isn't it? The AAA's part in the science of race difference is notable, but I think we're being too ambitious with the source used, the statement itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it definitely looks out of place to me there using a policy argument. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Rushton and Jensen, as likely the main proponent of the partly-genetic theory it is not strange that they are mentioned frequently. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, in order to also represent the views of IQ experts, I propose we also mention the only survey ever done regarding the views of this group: The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book). Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to put multiple points of view in context. If the issue is presenting the scientific debate Rushton and Jensen are involved in, obviously what we need to do is add an account of Tate & Audette 2001 - that is who they are debating against, right? As for the AAA statement, it is the position paper of a professional organization and the proper context would be the position papers of other professional organizationas such as the APA, the ASA, the NABT, AIBS, NAS, etc. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What the AAA and AAPA's statements are is not really clear since they make scientific claims without citing any scientific sources unlike scientific statements by many other organizations that cite scientific sources extensively when making a scientific view. Regarding the lead, in order to be neutral all significant views should be represented. If we include the view of the AAA and AAPA, which is based on a supposed non-existence of race, then we should also mention that that many anthropologists outside and inside the US disagree. See for example this review: [36] One of the most important views is certainly that of IQ experts. Thus the lead should mention the only survey ever done regarding the views of this group:The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book) Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Štrkaj's article is very good - but the place it belongs is in the race article, along ith a discussion of Cartmill, in the place where we discuss Lieberman. it is not comparable to a statement made by a professional organization. Statements by professional organizations represent ... the views ... of ... professional organizations. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of views though was the question, it seemed like a moral statement. Dmcq (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy survey is nearly 30 years old now, older than 95% of the citations here. It's already mentioned in the history article, which is where it belongs. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Štrkaj and Lieberman are both already here. (So is the paper about the Anatomy textbooks. Why am I not surprised.?) Along with its million other problems, this article has synth trickling through it. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does reading this thread feel like deja vu?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am primarily talking about the intro where these opposing views are not mentioned. Like the The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book) which is not really not that much different in age from the race and intelligence AAA statement mentioned there (1994 vs. 1988). Likewise, we should mention in the intro that many anthropologists inside and outside the US, and other scientists, do not agree with the official views of the american anthropological associations. The intro is currently not NPOV.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What "opposing" views should be included and where is a question of WP:WEIGHT and purpose designed polls by Rothman don't have much (if any). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It is the only survey ever done on the opinions of IQ experts. Not sure what you mean by "designed". As far as I know no on has accused the survey of being fraudulent. Articles on other controversial areas frequently mention surveys on the opinions of experts in the area. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's ludicrous to belabor this any further. Here's a similar poll barely older than this one.[37] It found 69% of experts still believed homosexuality was a pathological disorder. I suspect any editor urging that that poll be given "equal time" in the article with the opinions rendered today by the A. P. A. or other scientific associations wouldn't get far. Belaboring the issue, overhyping its supposed significance by invoking NPOV, in multiple articles, for a year or more, would be a real nuisance I'm sure.

There's some major cleaning to be done in the synth department, btw, such as the paper about anatomy textbooks. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1974 is hardly the same as 1988. If the survey is outdated, then the same would seem to apply to the 1994 AAA statement about race and intelligence. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Surveys were conducted in 1977 and 1984 respectively, not 1974 and 1988. They were both opinion polls, not official position statements. And from the looks of it, the AAA confirms this remains their current position.[38] Are you going to clean up your synth? Or shall I? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your link does not go to such confirmation. An opinion poll of the views of scientists is arguably more important than a statement not citing any scientific sources. Not sure what synth you referring to. The study on anatomy textbooks? Yes, it does not mention IQ. Neither do many of the sources denying that race exists. No double standard please. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is my last statement on the issue. Of course the link substantiates it. Let me know if you find anything there disconfirming it and we can take it from there. The opinion poll in question included exactly 1 question on the issue, which the authors themselves admitted was erroneously framed. The survey didn't cite any "scientific sources". Yes, all the synthed refs need to come out. When you find sources used that violate core policy, then you remove them or replace them-you don't give "equal time" here to the opposition's crap sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your link goes to a search page and not to a confirmation or disconfirmation of anything. Source for that "the authors themselves admitted was erroneously framed"? Surveys of the opinions of scientists are frequently cited in Wikipedia's articles on controversial issues, like evolution and global warming, and are arguable more valuable regarding scientific views than a statement not citing any scientific sources. I am all for improving the article and adding better sources. See for example the section below. "View of molecular geneticists", for a review source on the views of molecular geneticists on race and intelligence. Many molecular geneticists do think that there is no automatic objection against the possibility of different human populations differing in the genes determining genetic intelligence. This would be a valuable review source and view to add to the article.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record: "Source for that "the authors themselves admitted was erroneously framed"?" It's in the book you're citing. This has been pointed out to you before. I've enough on my plate already and leave the chore of refreshing your memory to you.[39] Professor marginalia (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Marginalia, shouldn't give equal time to opposition sources; (in the context of statements of opinion in the field), we should give considerably greater time; the survey indicates that the 100% environmentalist hypothisis is the minority point of view and thus is vastly over-represented in the intro. 110.32.128.7 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The views of molecular geneticists

Great emphasis is currently placed on the views of psychologists and anthropologists. However, there are also others who research the issue. One such group is molecular geneticists. A group that likely will become increasingly important in the future as we learn more about the exact genetic causes of intelligence. Here is a review article: [40] One quote: "There is a conviction among many brain and behavioral genetics researchers that human genes involved in intelligence likely continued to evolve among modern humans after the migration from Africa and that populations with different genetic ancestries may have distinctive intellectual strengths as a result of this ongoing process."

Another view is that presented by "genetic anthropologist Henry Harpending and colleague Gregory Cochran" in "the 2009 book "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution"": "At the center of their argument is the notion that genetic changes caused the ‘explosion’ in European, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures after their exit from Africa. ‘Obviously, something important,some genetic change, occurred in Africa that allowed moderns to expand out of Africa and supplant archaic species’ (ibid, p. 31), they assert. This genetic change, they argue, must have yielded enhanced intelligence for those who carried the favored alleles."

There is also the whole microcephalin and ASPM debate. While no association was ultimately was found with IQ there was at one time great controversy and thus that debate is an important part of the history of the field and should be mentioned.

There are also general reviews regarding the role of genetics for intelligence and intelligence differences. See these two reviews by Dreary: [41][42] I think the article would be better by mentioning something regarding the current state of research regarding this. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well my skim of the book is - it talks about Ashkenazi Jews intelligence which I don't think belongs in this article to begin with, but I'm taking this one step at a time. If you want to make some claims about the "explosion" by genetically superior migrants out of Africa, there's nothing to discuss unless the book ties this with race IQ gap today. Otherwise it's synth. Page numbers would be helpful. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The review article does not mention Ashkenazi Jews except very briefly in one sentence as an example of Harpending's research. The review article only mentions the book "The 10,000 Years Explosion" briefly as noted above. The review article is obviously the important source for the views of molecular geneticists. This is an important group that has been neglected in this article.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the first source you proposed. No opinion yet, but will take a look again when I have more time. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cluster analysis

In the citation cleanup, I've left Brace and Graves for now but they are somewhat ill-used where they are now. I suspect the original claim moved during some kind of reshuffle, but the paragraph seems to circle about cluster analysis, their strengths/weaknesses, fallacies and implications for this topic. And neither of those sources fit that well in that particular theme. I won't waste time tweaking it until we get some consensus about where we're going with this anyway. Hunt's view that CA lends confidence to self-identified race assignment is there now. But "other side's" opinions (lack of a better word) aren't described well. (It's peripheral in Brace or Graves, at most.) I don't have a clear idea myself yet how to handle this properly. It's a bit of a muddle because few on either side disagree with what cluster analysis really shows-it's simply a means to model relatedness patterns. They also agree what it doesn't show-genetic matched phenotype variation between any two or more populations. Where they disagree comes down to the same sticking point they disagree over when leaving cluster analysis completely out of it. One side thinks grouping populations "racially" is useful to presume "shared genes" in those populations cause IQ differences and the other side doesn't. Neither side supposes the markers used in cluster analysis have anything to do with IQ.

It's a tangle now but the last thing this article needs is a lengthy discourse about what can or can't be inferred from cluster analysis, although this is why critics charge it's misusing the tool. Maybe better sources would suggest to us a better direction here. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The real experts on this are molecular geneticists and I have added a section on their views above. This is also a fast moving field. I think today more scientists are using principal components analysis rather than cluster analysis which by itself invalidates some of the criticisms against cluster analysis such as having to determine how many clusters to look for in advance. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, working my way through this I've come to the Weiss and Fullerton article which has expressed the issues beautifully. We should make much better use of it, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Well, nevermind. It's synth so we have too keep looking. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

See only the usual arguments. There are no clearly demarcated racial groups with traits changing gradually with distance if looking at groups in their ancestral homes and if looking at a single gene there is not much differences between groups. This of course ignores that if taking people from very geographically distant ancestral regions and comparing there may be large differences between the groups on a trait and what applies to a single gene do not necessarily apply to a group. Here is some quotes from a critical article: "Worse still, forensic anthropologists are quite successful in correctly inferring a person’s race from the skeletal characteristics of human remains, which would of course be impossible if the statements in the above quotations were true. This prompted one bewildered and exasperated scientist to write an article with a provocative title: If Races Do Not Exist, Why Are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying Them?... ...it is taken for granted among forensic anthropologists that race is determinable from the skull and postcranium... ...multiplying relevant phenotypic racial traits brings more order and structure, and indeed lays ground for an objective biological classification."[43] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"See only the usual arguments." Exactly. That's the point. Nothing new here. Nobody claims there is. Read it again. Stay out of the debate. You haven't been given a role to play in it. We're just trying to explain it half way decently. And we're failing in that task so far. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am pointing out that these usual arguments have usual responses. Which are not fairly mentioned in the article. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Ashkenazi Jew material and genocides of high IQ groups

See [44]. No good reason given for this, obviously there should be at least a brief mention in the main article even if it is discussed also in another article. There should also be link in this section to the main article.

Furthermore, I also think there are important moral reasons to mention this. High IQ minority groups that are successful have not infrequently been persecuted or been the subject of attempted genocide by majority. This because their success, if not due to for example a high IQ, may be blamed on some conspiracy or their supposed evil, parasitic nature. (See What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True? Linda S. Gottfredson, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 311-319. See also the book "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker).

Thus, Hitler prohibited IQ tests in Nazi Germany because their danger for Nazi ideology. Another high IQ group that are currently persecuted or at risk for this are Chinese in South Asia. See for example the book World on Fire and Overseas Chinese#Discrimination. I personally feel strongly that Wikipedia have an important purpose here by giving information that can prevent persecutions and genocide. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument that leaving this will "prevent future genocide" is ultimate tops in the hyperbole department. Let's just focus on writing a decent article about the topic, "race and intelligence" and leave saving the planet to Superman. We don't need any more of this flooding the talk page here-we need to get some work done.

An earlier proposal to merge all the group differences in IQ in the literature into a single article failed so they remain having separate articles. Ashkenazi intelligence has it's own article. Why does it need to be here too? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As already stated, also if there is a subarticle it should be briefly summarized in the main article and a link given. That high IQ groups may have an increased risk of persecution and genocide due to their success, especially if their success is seen as caused by something more negative than IQ differences, is an argument in the literature. Therefore it should be mentioned. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you're not seeing this, Acadēmica Orientālis, but the section that has been removed said nothing whatsoever about their suffering genocide because they had higher than average IQ scores. Thus your argument for keeping it makes no sense. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer my argument regarding subarticles having a brief summary and link in the main article. Sources given for the persecution argument in my first post in this section above. If not mentioned/removed, the article should mention this important argument. Not necessarily in this section. Such persecutions have happened to many successful groups like Chinese as mentioned above.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep the focus on the section that was removed, and let give room for others to weigh in. If you want to develop some new content about IQ and racial persecutions, then propose your idea in a new section. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You have still not replied to my point of subarticles having a brief summary and link in the main article. That lacking knowledge of IQ differences may contribute to persecution of high IQ groups is obviously an argument for mentioning such IQ groups in the article. Yes, the persecution argument should go into another section, such as one discussing the societal implications of IQ differences and the value of IQ research and knowledge, but this argument is an important reason for mentioning high IQ groups in the article.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know it was supposed to be a subarticle of this one. In any event, the content removed was in the US intelligence section while the content focused on Europe. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The data is regarding US Jews. Do you have any objections against keeping the material in order to have a brief summary and a link to the subarticle? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really then, but fix the text so it says what you say it means. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly instead that section should be about the US and Europe instead. Also could we not have arguments about keeping or removing stuff based on stopping persecution. Wikipedia is not a soapbox no matter how important the subject, we should just summarize the stuff with a neutral point of view. Soapboxing is next door to POV editing and censorship. Dmcq (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sources

See [45]. Why did you remove all the sources for the paragraph if you only disagreed with the last sentence? If you disagreed with the sentence it could have been changed after a discussion. No, there is no statement that brain size and reaction time are intelligence measures, only that they are variables that correlate with IQ tests. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There are 2 factors stalling progress in this article due their overabundance: a) Garbage In that burden other editors to clean back out and b) IDIDN'THEARTHAT obstructionism on the discussion page. And there is another factor that is stalling progress which is in short supply here: editors with enough time, access to sources, or energy to endure the IDHT obstructionism required for Garbage Out.

The context of that paragraph is "what is intelligence and how is it measured". That's all. Not the vast universe of facts, theories, or hunches about the variables that come in to play in determining how much intelligence someone has. There's no point in rewriting the sentence to fit the sources because that's not what the paragraph is addressing. If there's a better fit someplace else, then you find it. But it doesn't belong here. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So why did you not remove just that sentence instead of keeping it but instead removing all the sources for the whole paragraph? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have now removed the sentence but the references are still missing. Any reason for not adding them back? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed all the refs cited to the removed sentence. If any of them apply to the sentence before it, fine. But that sentence should be simplified...we don't need an exhaustive list of all the IQ tests and those that sometimes are used in place of them, anyway. A brief mention there are some, a few named as examples, cited with a single source is plenty. What's neglected so far there isn't saying more and more and more about IQ tests. The section is striving (and so far not very well succeeding) in describing how "intelligence" and scores on the IQ test (as well as its close cousins) are not the same thing, and there is no consensus so far on how well the scores on IQ tests line up with what intelligence means. That there are other measures too, though less widely used and no more agreed upon. And how or why, despite this, the "race and intelligence" debate revolves around scores on IQ tests. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There may be well more to intelligence than IQ but IQ predicts a number of important life outcomes which it why IQ scores are widely used practically and seen as important. Furthermore, tests of mental ability tend to correlate highly with one another. Does not matter if it is an IQ test, SAT scores, or international student achievement tests. There are no tests of mental ability, and which do not correlate highly with IQ, that is anywhere near as good a predictor of future achievement as IQ and highly correlated tests.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. The article says this much now. It's rest of the picture that's murky. See comment above. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty well established that SAT scores predict nothing. That is why the company had to change their name - "SAT" remains a registered trade-mark but it no longer stands for "Student Aptitude Test" because the company withdrew its claim that it measures aptitude (that it predicts future performance). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Colleges use SAT scores because SAT scores do predict things colleges are interested in like grades and college retention.[46] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And your source that SAT scores do predict things is ...? Why not read James Crouse and Dale Trusheim, The Case Against the SAT (University of Chicago Press, 1988), Todd Morrison and Melanie Morrison, "A Meta-Analytic Assessment of the Predictive Validity of the Quantitative and Verbal Components of the Graduate Record Examination with Graduate Grade Point Averages Representing the Criterion of Graduate Success," Educational and Psychological Measurement 55, no. 2, April 1995, pages 309-316. Stanley Kaplan, in his memoir Test Pilot, writes "The S.A.T. is now seventy-five years old, and it is in trouble. Earlier this year, the University of California—the nation’s largest public-university system—stunned the educational world by proposing a move toward a “holistic” admissions system, which would mean abandoning its heavy reliance on standardized-test scores. The school backed up its proposal with a devastating statistical analysis, arguing that the S.A.T. is virtually useless as a tool for making admissions decisions." Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Source already given but here it is again: [47] A recent one, and not fifteen or twenty years old unlike those you mention. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Independent analysis is better as it avoids any conflict of interest. The college Board makes a great deal of money selling exams and has a vested interest in these claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Which does not automatically invalidate research sponsored by them anymore than it does for, say, medical research on drugs payed for by pharmaceutical companies. But if you want another source here is a recent review that also finds SAT scores to be significant predictors.[48] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference "padding"

I'd like to see the reference "padding" curtailed here too. The article is too big, too choppy, and too bloated. A claim "Rushton and Jensen say" doesn't need 6 references where they said it. It needs 1, the most cite-worthy available. The overkill makes the reader wade through blubber for no reason, and makes navigating the edit pages more tedious than it needs to be. We need to cite references but we don't need to spam them. So that's another cleanup chore that needs doing. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess this would be one: [49]. I would of course be best to keep the most recent statement of their position and not remove that one. Also, I note that this section is problematic, using the word "note" which should be avoided (WP:WORDS) since it declares one side as proven correct which is not the case. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Typically in research papers it is the earliest citation where a novel claim appears that is cited, and those will be most often cited in the secondary sources. As in the case of attributed views to those who first proposed them, like Dickens and Flynn, those will be primary sources, which for obvious reasons we have to use cautiously here. There are a lot of nobody-cares-about-their-opinion and lunatic fringe published on this topic, and we need to choose whose opinions merit mention here and whose don't based on how notable those opinions are in the field. Attributing a claim to Dickens and Flynn should go to the earliest citation - but demonstrating how much influence it carries in the field may need us to cite it used in work written by others. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This ignores that there have often been much new debate and research after an argument was first mentioned. Citing only the oldest source thus misses much of the argumentation and debate. Reviews also summarizes research and draws conclusions and thus may present material and arugments not available in any primary source. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What a relief! We can finally put to bed the notion that a 30 year old opinion survey has much merit then!

Anyway, back to the point. We aren't "missing much of the argumentation and debate" if source is sufficient to cite the claim we've added to the article. When there is new argumentation or new debate in a newer work that's important to mention, then the new stuff should be put in the article and then by all means...cite it properly to the newer work.

Instead I'm coming across a lot of goofy stuff like this debate over Eyferth which in reality unfolded like this, each one an answer to the one before it except Nisbett2009:

Eyferth1961 -> Flynn1980 -> DickensFlynn2001 -> Loehlin2002 -> DickensFlynn2002 -> JensenRushton2005 -> Nisbett2005 -> Nisbett2009 -> JensenRushton2010

We've put it together in this sequence:

Eyferth -> Rushton2010 -> DickensFlynn2001

And cited that sequence like this:

Nisbett2009 -> JensenRushton2010 -> Nisbett2005

with the Nisbett2009 ref for Eyferth, JensenRushton citing JensenRushton, and Nisbett2005 citing idunnowhat-the "3 IQ point" compensation Flynn calculated in 1980 is not mentioned in Nisbett2005.

We confused it even further giving Nisbett and Rushton/Jensen center stage. We don't need "Nisbett said Dickens and Flynn said", that's completely unnecessary. We've also completely goofed who the real life notable opinionators here, who were not Nisbett and RushtonJensen as named here, but DickensFlynn and Loehlin! They did the work, while Nisbett, Rushton and Jensen were the bystanders. And while you say the later papers bring "new debate"--if so we sure as helsinki didn't use any of it. The claims here were unchanged from Flynn1980 and Loehlin2002. It's not a big deal except when we're attributing a key claim to it's originator. Not such a big deal when we're attributing secondary opinions who agree or disagree with it. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

While primary sources are not prohibited in WP, secondary reviews are preferable. Obviously later reviews are preferable regarding a field with much new research. Thus, the best sources are the latest reviews. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me the solution isn't that hard. We should do more of this to settle out sources and attribution properly: "Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 born to and raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences. The study had weaknesses in x, y and z, but following extensive analysis Flynn (1980) concluded these would account for at most 3 IQ points. This analysis has failed to satisfy all of the study's critics (see Loehlin (2002), Rowe (2xxx), Dickson and Flynn (2002)), and the study is seen as providing an intriguing, but insufficient, example in the literature pointing to culture rather than genetics to explain the IQ gap.ref->Sternberg, Handbook of Intelligence, 2000 "

Note this solves a lot of other problems as well, such as the absurd overuse of Rushton, Jensen and to a lesser extent Nisbett who are in the middle of way too damn many claims here they have no particular claim to or special notability for putting their names behind. As in the case of the 'x, y and z' problems with Eyferth which were not spelled out by Rushton first, nor Loehlin, but were already in FLYNN 1980! Flaws x, y and z were the whole point to the reanalysis. So the above method of citation is far more faithful to the facts and players involved. -- Professor marginalia (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, secondary reviews are preferable to primary sources. It is not our task weight up the primary sources and draw conclusions. That is SYNTH and OR. Such conclusions and overviews are the task of secondary reviews. The latest reviews have more recent research and are thus better. Which is why Nisbett and Rushton/Jensens reviews are mentioned frequently. This obviously does not mean that did reviewers did all the research mentioned in the the reviews themselves.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lame. Strawman argument = IDHT. Nothing in my example were conclusions that weren't secondarily sourced - and verifiable per citations given. How many of the Nisbett/Rushton/Jensen secondary sourcing here is yours? I'll tell you as I plunge through resources on the subject I see no justification whatsoever for this peculiar focus. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You cite several primary sources. If you mean that everything ultimately is supposed to be from a secondary source this is not at all clear. Not sure what your actual policy objection is. There is no policy objections against citing the most recent reviews extensively. Also, your description abvove is biased. You spell out some of the arguments of one side in detail but not those of the other side, like that family effects on IQ tend to disappear after puberty.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well excuse me for any patronizing overtones in my response because I'm at a loss otherwise responding to your objection. Secondary sources aren't granted the credit for opinion via attribution, even here. The very idea is ludicrous to me. "The New York Times says e=mc²" is the idiocy I'm attempting to clean up in this article. That's equivalent to the kind of lazy, hamfisted attribution/citation justifications I'm challenging. Professor marginalia (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

An overview article does not need and cannot go into details regarding exactly which researcher did what in a particular study at a particular time. This is obviously impossible for an area with thousands of published papers. There is a special section for history, including the history of research. Citing review papers of course in no way imply that the reviewers did the research mentioned in the review. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to invent obstacles here. My example derives from reading the sources cited. The Nisbett2009, JensenRushton2010, and Nisbett2005? They say to whom and where attribution belongs--and we monkeyed with what they've said in reporting it here so it no longer makes sense. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am still not sure what is you policy objection against these reviews? Secondary sources are preferred in Wikipedia. Recent reviews are obviously better than old ones. Citing old primary sources and reviews means that we may miss important new developments. If you are using the most recent reviews but not acknowledging this, then that is wrong also. More generally, I see no need to go into these issues into great detail. A casual reader is likely not interested in what in the end amounts to often rather complicated mathematical arguments and a professional will read the sources directly. As such the whole genetic or not discussion can be summarized as that the issue is disputed and will likely remain so until we can do direct genetic testing on different groups examining the genes affecting IQ. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that your understanding of WP:PSTS is still weak at best. Secondary and tertiary sources are indeed preferred. They are the best guide to establishing proper synthesis and weight. Likewise, they are an excellent guide for determining which primary sources are relevant, including the appropriate weight to give them. However, when a secondary source is attributing something to a primary source, the content attributed should be sourced to the primary source. If the secondary source has not been cited already in the section or article, including a citation would make sense. Including a gaggle of secondary sources simply to establish the weight of a specific statement can be citation spamming. aprock (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"However, when a secondary source is attributing something to a primary source, the content attributed should be sourced to the primary source." Not mentioning the secondary source at all would be incorrect attribution of the sources used and could be a not allowed synthesis of primary sources.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your exact point is explicitly covered in the 6th sentence. Please at least finish reading what I wrote before you reply. aprock (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I find it odd that you're pushing back on this because the article has properly cited primary sources innumerable times. To wit (as already in the main body): Eyferth (1961); Fryer and Levitt (2006); The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (1976); Eppig, Fincher, and Thornhill (2009); A 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn ; Murray in a 2006; Roth et al. (2001); Rushton and Jensen (2005); Gray and Thompson (2004); "In their 1988 book The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy; Hunt and Carlson (2007); The Mismeasure of Man (1996); The Bell Curve Debate (1995)The g Factor: The science of mental ability (1998) by Jensen; In 1969 Arthur Jensen , etc.

You're leaving the impression you're uncomfortable with the suggestion that in too many cases proper attribution has been sidestepped to spotlight Rushton and Jensen again and again. Shall we eliminate properly identifying or citing Jensen 1969 and attribute its conclusions to one of the thousands of later secondary sources rendering an opinion on it? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Jensen 1969 is particularly notable article because of the social controversy it generated at the time. Not because of presentation of scientific arguments which are presented much better in later reviews which includes later research. The same would apply to, say, the Mismeasure of Man. Such famous sources should be mentioned. But since there are thousands of studies we cannot name them all. Furthermore, picking out which one we feel should be included is problematic. Which is why review articles are preferable if available. Again, I repeat that general reader is likely not all that interested in the complex and often mathematical details of the debate, so I think the genetic or not not debate should be summarized very briefly.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Any more strawmen show up here and we should light a match and call it a day. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of response is this? Is it even civil? Are you really trying to make this a better article "Professor"?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"What kind of response is this?" An appropriate one. I am not here to waste my time defending Synth, improperly cited claims, and redundant sources. I'm not here to defend poorly managed attributions. I'm not here to stop genocide, and I'm not here to humor straw man arguments all day. I'm not here to answer the same question 8,000 times. What editor who is motivated to improve the article would oblige any of it? Professor marginalia (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Professor Marginalia made a simple and quite correct point: if the article presents an account of a view expressed in a published book or article (note, both are considered secondary sources by WP), then we should provide one citation, for the secondary source that first presented that view. If subsequent books and articles repeat the same point, there is no need to cite them, it is redundant. If any subsequent book or article presents new information or views, then we should add the new material to the article and add the new citation. Otherwise, there is simply no need to add another citation. Acadēmica Orientālis has yet to respond to Professor Marginalia's point. All Acadēmica Orientālis has said is that we should favor secondary sources over primary sources, which is a complete non sequitor as Professor Marginalia never suggested using a primary source. So this thread seems to be a big waste of time. If no one has a real objection to PM's point, we should just follow the suggestion and make the appropriate improvement to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy stating that one should use the oldest secondary source available. On the contrary, for example WP:MEDRS states: "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years.". Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not discussing reviews. We're discussing matching up attributed claims to their most cite-worthy reference. This has been explained repeatedly in this thread. It isn't important to take the earliest reviews. It is important to take the significant citation for attributions. As in attributing the view that speciation takes place through descent with modification and natural selection to Darwin The Origin of Species, and not to Darwin The Autobiography of Charles Darwin because it was the last time chronologically Darwin said it nor to Richard Dawkins because he wrote a commentary about evolution "within the last 5 years".

Nobody is claiming that the earliest general overview or review is best. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We have discussed reviews, among other things, as can be seen in the above posts. There is no WP policy requirement to name the primary studies a secondary source summarize. This can be useful for really notable primary sources but there is no requirement that every primary source summarized by a secondary source should be named. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As to primary. Exactly. It can be useful...as in cases such as what is mentioned at the start of this thread. In that case, Eyferth, we don't need to write "Nisbett says Flynn says". That's just word bloat, and put the wrong spin on what occurred. As I demonstrated way back when at the beginning of the thread, the citations, chronology and actors were all screwed up (Nisbett seemingly describing an event 5 years in the future)— and the solution was an easy one. Three references were given where 1 would do. To untangle it and set it right, we realize the account was goofed up, that it is useful, ie the problem resolves itself nicely if we do a better job of attributing the claims. It's a useful solution that is far superior to attributing these claims to people who didn't make them but merely reported them somewhere. There is no requirement. It's just a lot better that way. Useful, and better. Nobody said that it's "required" to prefer the more accurate, less confusing alternative. Most editors probably don't need to be required to take that route.

As to reviews, such as this one. See above where I said it is not a big deal to find the earliest publication for secondary sourced opinions. There were 3 conclusions listed and attributed to Rushton and Jensen. There is no confusion who said what when. They said it. It's not all tangled up with needless doo-whopping like "Nisbett says Flynn says Rushton and Jensen saids" to wade through. Two references were cited when one of them was plenty. Which one was plenty? Well, the 2005 of course. Why? First, the claims were attributed to Rushton and Jensen, and we don't need a citation to Nisbett to vouch they said it (as in previous where Nisbett was citation used for Flynn). And second, only 2 of the 3 claims actually appear in the 2010 so obviously that one would not suffice to cite the claim. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources are a twisted mess. All of the "...yeah but Jensen and Rushton (or one of their clan) says different..." stuff really must go. It would also help if we could separate the research from the rhetoric making sure stuff like (ref 21) Rushton and Jensen's "Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It." published in "The Open Psychology Journal" isn't presented as anything more than editorial published in a low-qualiy journal I.e. Questionable, if any, peer-review. (Is it just me or does the doi link to the wrong bit of psuedoscience?) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Open Psychology Journal, a peer-reviewed journal".[50] Unlike Nisbett's 2009 book which did not have any peer-review at all.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think the genetic-or-not debate should be summarized very briefly as unresolved and disputed and likely remaining to be so until direct genetic testing of genes affecting IQ are possible. The general readers are likely not that interested in the complex, often mathematical, argumentation that resolves nothing and the professional will read the journals directly. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just saying or printing "a peer-reviewed journal" does not magically make it so. More to the point: There is no "genetic-or-not debate". It is a question of how much, as in a quantity expressed as a percentage. Jensen et al. see high numbers of 70 to 90% and claim their science says people are just born stupid, by race. While the rest of the known universe comes up with lower numbers and observes a mix of factors...with Nisbett at around 50%. The "genetic-or-not debate" is a red herring and the idea that we should avoid the subject in any depth because everything is "unresolved and disputed" gives undue weight to the opinions of a small and dated minority. That's not something we usually do here. Furthermore, your argument presupposes the existence of "intelligence" genes that we can't currently test for. How convenient. I call shenanigans. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rushton and Jensen usually state 50% for the most researched gap, the US black-white gap. Nisbett advocates 0% genetics as an explanation for the gap. In the only survey ever done on the opinion of IQ experts more agreed with the partly-genetic explanation than the non-genetic explanation. See The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Direct testing of group differences regarding IQ affecting genes will likely be the only way to conclusively decide the debate. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed SES material

"Rushton and Jensen argue that controlling for SES only reduces the black-white gap by a third or 5 points. If there are racial genetic differences, then this figure is overstated since part of the differences in parental SES are due to differences in parental IQ. Furthermore, they argue, an environment-only explanation predicts that the IQ gap would be smaller at higher levels of parental SES since these children would be less exposed to the environmental factors lowering IQ. However, the gap is actually larger at higher parental SES levels. They also point to studies finding higher average IQ for East Asians, American Indians, and Inuit with similar or worse SES than blacks. Comparing black and white children for the geographical areas of their homes, the schools they attend, and other finer grade socioeconomic indicators found that the black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower on IQ than the white children with the worst socioeconomic factors."

This is obviously important opposing views. If we should have a detailed genetic-or-not discussion this should be restored. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Argument from obviousness isn't a strong enough rationale to merit inclusion. aprock (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have arguments for not including these important views while following WP:NPOV? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, the article as you rewrote it, is already significantly biased towards presenting the work of Pioneer Fund grantees. Your suggestion that adding even more such content can only make the article less neutral, not more. aprock (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently biased against the partly-genetic explanation since much supporting material, like this, has been removed. Much of the supporting research summarized in the reviews by Rushton and Jensen, such as the material mentioned above, have not been done by Pioneer Fund grantees.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're a big fan of the work of Rushton and Jensen, but suggesting that the article is biased against presenting their work, when it mentions each by name more than any other researcher, is nothing less than baffling. aprock (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rushton/Jensen and Nisbett were cited frequently because they have written the most recent reviews regarding the genetic-or-not debate, arguing from different POVs. Reviews are the preferred sources in Wikipedia. Again, numerous researchers have found results supporting the partially-genetic explanation, not just Rushton/Jensen. Not mentioning these important views regarding socioeconomic explanations violates WP:NPOV. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote every piece of research that supports your personal point of view. Again, as the article currently stands, Rushton and Jensen are by far the most represented researchers. Your continued efforts to insert even more research from hereditarian sources only makes the article less neutral not more. aprock (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not written in the article for how a long time and was never the sole author of the article. Its current state is certainly bad with a strong bias against the partly-genetic explanation by removing material such as the above. However, an article citing the most recent reviews frequently is not prohibited by policy. The best sources can be cited frequently. A review is not the result of just the authors but of also the numerous other researchers cited in reviews. As the arguments presented above represent significant views regarding the role of SES they should be included in order for the article to have an NPOV presentation of the debate. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

They haven't written "the most recent reviews". We have several which are more recent, so I take it that you would have no objection to "updating" Rushton and Jensen's old reviews to accomodate the newer ones? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a more recent review representing the partially-genetic side? Which one? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

By "representing" here, do you mean "discusses" or "written by"? If the recent reviews deal with the topic, there is real issue here. Or are requiring that such a review must be written by someone who you deem as on the "partially-genetic side" to merit inclusion? aprock (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The reviews regarding the partially-genetic explanation are written by supporters or critics. Thus reviews from both sides are needed. My point regarding that the material mentioned above is needed for NPOV still stands. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what this means. Are you saying that the 2012 review cannot be used as a source until a Pioneer Fund grantee releases one? Or are you saying that the reviews from Pioneer Fund grantees should be removed if mainstream reviews cannot be found to "balance" out the views? Either way, I don't think you'll find much community support for the idea that the article requires presentation parity between the views of Pioneer Fund grantees and the views of everyone else. aprock (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that reviews from both sides regarding the debate are needed. We can certainly cite the 2012 review regarding the views one side of the debate. Much of the supporting research for the partially-genetic explanation have not been done by Pioneer Fund grantees. My point regarding the need for inclusion of the deleted material in order for the article to be NPOV still applies. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to make a more coherent argument than this. Given that Rushton/Jensen's views currently dominate in the article, to satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT we're going to have to either prune out some of their represented views, or add more mainstream views to the article. If you'd like to suggest ways which we can achieve a more balanced article, you're welcome to do so. If you really feel that this specific content is more relevant than the other Rushton and Jensen content, you're welcome to trim away. aprock (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The partially-genetic arguments, which represents the views of numerous researchers and not just Jensen/Rushton, are presently underrepresented in the article. The SES arguments are one example. There is no policy stating that one should delete arguments in order to achieve some sorts of balance. All important arguments should be mentioned. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest review

As noted above, the latest review is from this year, and is available for download: [51]. aprock (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A review written by critics of the partially-genetic explanation as noted earlier. My point regarding the need for inclusion of the deleted material in order for the article to be NPOV still stands. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that you've presented no policy based rationale, and so far your only rationale is that inclusion is "obvious", I don't expect that you'll convince anyone on this point. aprock (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviews often find different results. There is no policy stating that only one review should be cited. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not an argument for inclusion. aprock (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that WP should not only present the views of one side. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is not an argument for inclusion. The Rushton/Jensen "side" is more than adequately represented in the article. aprock (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, since for example important argument regarding the role of SES are not mentioned. If there are counter-arguments to the above arguments, then please add them.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

[52]. aprock (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page disruption

At this point it seems fairly clear that Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis is not able to offer up any policy based rationales for inclusion. The only policy quoted so far is WP:NPOV, which clearly indicates that more content sourced to Rushton and Jensen is not the path to WP:NPOV. Until Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis can begin to engage constructive dialogue, there is little use in continuing this conversation. aprock (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

See my arguments above. But, obviously, we cannot continue the discussion if you do not want to. Since I do not think I have a consensus I will not make any edits regarding this to the article but wait for the input of uninvolved editors. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"If Rushton and Jensen said it we have to include it otherwise the article is not {fill in the blank}. And even though they have twice as many mentions -- and citations -- as any other researcher identified here, the article has neglected their work so far and this must be rectified. Any opportunity we have for putting their names and citations on someone else's work should taken up as well." Message received and noted. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rushton/Jensen were cited frequently because they have written two recent and lengthy reviews, summarizing the research of numerous primary research articles by many researchers. Until maybe recently, there was no similarly good review summarizing of the arguments of the non-genetic side. The closest thing was Nisbett 2009 which is a comparatively brief (and not peer-reviewed) article which was a response to some of the arguments in Rushton and Jensen's first review. Thus, by necessity, one had to use many other sources, sometimes primary, in order to present the views of the non-genetic side fairly. But citing a good, recent review frequently is not prohibited. I also note that many of the citations to Nisbett 2009 seem to have been changed to other sources since I last wrote something in the article a long time ago. Anyway, I currently think that it would be best to summarize the genetic-or-not debate to a very brief statement of this being disputed and unresolved and likely being so until direct genetic testing is available. The complex debate, often involving complicated mathematical arguments, will likely not be of interest to he general reader and in the end does not resolve the dispute. A professional will read the literature directly. Such a summary of the genetic-or-not debate would certainly remove most citations to Rushton and Jensen. But if we are going to have a detailed discussion, then both sides should be presented fairly, which includes mentioning the SES arguments above. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

[53] Professor marginalia (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems we going in circles currently and constructive discussion may have stopped. Anyway, I will not currently add the SES material to the article since I do not seem have a consensus. Input from uninvolved editors would be welcome. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I support inculcation of something like the paragraph, although it seems a bit biased the way its written now. 110.32.132.48 (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed section on "Signifiance of group differences"

See [54]. This is obviously a very important area since IQ differences have important consequences regardless of if they are partially-genetic or not. As such I think this section should be restored. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

While something may be "obvious" to you, that's not enough to support inclusion. The content you link to is about The Bell Curve, which is already discussed in the article, and Guns, Germs, and Steel, which isn't primarily about intelligence. aprock (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The content from the Bell Curve discussed in this section is not discussed elsewhere in this article. The author of Guns, Germs, and Steel explicitly stated in the book that it was written in response to the race and intelligence debate. Anyway, that is just some of the sources mentioned. IQ differences, regardless of if partially genetically caused or not, have important practical consequences which obviously also should be mentioned. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a section on the topic is important. I recall their was a pair of debate articles published in Nature on the topic which could be of use. TheTrunchbull. (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Broadening/updating views

Besides Nisbett et al 2012, we could make more use of Hunt's 2010 Human Intelligence and Sternberg's 2011 Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. I should have more on these after the weekend, and should have more by then, but these are a promising start. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted earlier the article focuses almost exclusively on the view of psychologists and anthropologists. We should also include the views of molecular geneticists. See the review here: Talk:Race and intelligence#The views of molecular geneticists Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Richardson source is possibly interesting, though she is not a molecular geneticist, and the article was not published in a science journal. The Harpending/Cochran book is idle speculation, and has nothing to do with molecular genetics. aprock (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The book is mentioned in the review and cites a lot of research. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The review is published in a peer-reviewed journal unlike the books mentioned above.[55][56] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the Richardson but it seems relevant from the abstract. I suspect we do still have some SYNTH problems with the claims about it here now, besides the fact many refs there now are oldish primary sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oldish primary sources where? The article is a review. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In this article is what I'm referring to. Postuma et al 2002, Thompson et al 2001. Professor marginalia (talk)

Here is a review on the brain size and intelligence: [57] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Solution To Article Structure To Accomodate Disputes

Some critical observations about this article followed by a suggested solution drawn from the Introduction section.

OBSERVATIONS
1) The quality of this article has declined over the past five years to the point where, aside from perhaps the introductory section, it is all but meaningless. It certainly informs the reader about one thing: that there is confusion among editors. But it does not inform the reader as to the state and reasons for the dispute over the correlation between race and intelligence test results. This debate is old, and murray and pinker and others have certainly popularized the debate, so without the historical context of this debate and a section that denotes the political consequences of any discussion is either accidentally or intentionally misleading. (The need for race neutrality in government, and the fear of consequences of abandoning race neutrality in policy.)

2) The article does not state that intelligence as used in testing -- general intelligence or (g) -- is an empirical concept that measures the rate at which individuals are able to incorporate and utilize patterns of increasingly abstract relations into their memories. Furthermore, it is factually inaccurate to state that there is no agreed upon definition for intelligence. This is a confusion in terms. There is an entirely agreed upon definition for (g) general intelligence in the intelligence testing community. And it is that quantitative expression that is argued to be correlated with race. Not "intelligence" in the broader colloquial sense, by which humans mean "ability to act successfully and advantageously as a member of society". There may be other faculties that are commonly bundled under the category of 'intelligence' which are normative - used on casual conversation, but by definition a scientific concept is not normative - it just is either arithmetically correlative or not, or argumentatively causally related or not based upon the empirical measures. (And I won't get into apodeictically certain arguments here). And IQ, which is an expression of general intelligence is a scientific not normative concept.

3) There is a frequent and extremely unscientific concept of normative or 'general' opinion used in this article that confuses popular opinion, or even the opinion of 'public intellectuals' (ie: people who write or communicate for a living for the purpose of persuasion) with empirical evidence. Using opinions, studies and data from unrelated fields is simply unscientific - an attempt to mislead the reader. It does not matter what the anthropological (soft science) community says about a scientific (empirical) concept that is outside of their field. It is worth noting that political bodies are quoted in the introduction, but no body that manages, or conducts testing is quoted, despite the fact that there is a vast and highly empirical body of work on the subject that can be found by spending little more than twenty minutes on Amazon. (The American Psychological groups are not exactly free from political coercion.) Work outside the field of psychometrics is always questionable. For example, the brilliant evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gould wrote a popular book on intelligence (The Mismeasure of Man) which despite his otherwise valuable career-making insight into the existence of punctuated equilibrium of evolution, his book on measurement of races turns out to be entirely false. But in general, while normative usage can determine moral content or linguistic meaning, (contractual concepts) widespread opinion on scientific matters (true/false concepts) is in fact, generally relegated to the expressed ideas of a small number of experts. (See Kunh on the Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.) ie: popular opinion is meaningless. See the climate debate for example, or any debate over the impact of monetary policy.

4) As someone who is familiar with the vast literature on intelligence testing, as well as the methods involved, I can find no dispute in the field of intelligence testing, over the correlation between race and intelligence. (Although they tend to avoid talking about the subject.) All disputes come from unrelated or marginally related fields. There is no dispute in the empirical testing end of the field over whether there is a correlation or not. There is plenty of conjecture over whether race is a meaningful concept, and whether (g) is a sufficiently valuable means of testing "demonstrated practical intelligence in life". There is no dispute over whether intelligence is inherited, only over the ratio between heritability and environment in determining intelligence. Furthermore the article does not reference either the meaning of (g) or of intelligence testing, or the organizations and methods by which intelligence tests are gathered. It reads like a collection of newspaper clippings from popular press about the popular disputes over intelligence.

For example, abstract intelligence tends to benefit the individual by advancing him above his group. Empathy tends to be used to understand and develop consensus (usually downward - conservative). Verbal skill is largely a function of enabling persuasion which is necessary to get people to allocate their resources, time and energy (Habermas) (which is usually upward - progressive). All three are valuable skills. In this era of industrialization which has led to the disintegration of the family unit as the primary economic, and the rise of the individual as the primary economic entity, analytical skills are held at a higher premium than they were in our past. However, there are times in history where consensus and persuasion are more useful and important strategies (during systemic external pressures.)

5) Even outside the field of intelligence testing is is apparent that Empathy (which helps us understand others and therefor helps us adopt norms), Verbal reasoning which helps us articulate increasingly subtle ideas, and Spatial reasoning which allows us to create and compare abstractions - as well as forecast in time, are present in people to different degrees. (They are present in different races to different degrees. ie:The relative weakness of verbal and relative strength of spatial reasoning in asians, the strength of ashkinazim in verbal, the strength of spatial/verbal in northern (caucasian/germanic) europeans, the weakness of verbal and spatial in sub saharans, the weakness of verbal in the south asian pacific islander distribution, and the extraordinary weakness of verbal in amerindians. Even so, these strengths and weaknesses describe different distributions, not absolutes. Furthermore Empathy is generally higher in females and can be increased or decreased in both genders by the introduction of hormones (drugs), and the male development process significantly hinders their emotional development (for evolutionary reasons that are as yet subject to various means of conjecture.)

6) I would argue that NOT stating these different facets of the argument is by definition either a demonstration of confusion by the authors, or an attempt to politicize or mislead the reader. SO:

SUGGESTION:
Organization: I suggest that this article be broken into four sections outlining the four different positions as is suggested by the introduction:

a) Differences in measurable intelligence (g) reflect a real difference in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function.
b) Differences in average cognitive ability (g) between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors.
c) Differences in average cognitive ability (g) between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves.
d) Either or both of the concepts of race and general intelligence are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless.

DEFINITIONS:
Explain and link to Multiple Intelligences - so that the reader understands that there are different concepts of intelligence.
Explain and link to Intelligence Quotient (IQ) - so that the reader understands that IQ is a statistical aggregate with a long history.
Explain and link to (g) Factor (General Intelligence) - so that the reader understands that (g) is a sort of catch-all but with specific meaning.
Explain and link to Race (classification of humans) -- so that the reader understands 'Race'. Which, by the way, is a reasonably well written article, and treats the subject better than this article.
Explain and link to Identity (social science) -- which is why race has meaning in society - because people use it for decision making (environment).
Explain and link to Signaling_(economics) -- which is the economic reinforcement for race - because people within races have different signals (environment).

SUMMARY It is not possible to convey a neutral point of view across four dimensions of an argument over what is effectively a matter of metaphysical value judgements at present - because a neutral point of view requires value judgements that summarize the different positions in relation to one another, and thus advance or demean an argument. And this argument is too politically charged for anyone to abandon his preferred position.

This approach would allow the reader to choose his bias or at least understand the four positions. This would be more satisfactory (more neutral) given that the reasons for the correlation between race and intelligence (g) remains an open question, and the subject is highly politicized. Each case could be made under each general section.

GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION
This graph could be used to show the positions of the different researchers on the matter.

Add caption here

CLOSING The only NPOV is to give voice to all four dimensions of the argument. What is not a NPOV is to rely on confused definitions of intelligence, or questionable sources while ignoring the empirical sources, and the political consequences, and the social consequences, that give rise to the dispute.

I have no problem drafting this if anyone would support the effort. The community has all but abandoned this page and written it's own sections rather than refer to this page due to the degradation of the content over the past few years.

Thanks for your time. 99.224.27.14 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input: but we do not base articles on the unsourced assertions of a single contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not advocating anything other than a recommended change to the structure of the body of the article to reflect what is clearly a disorganized and ill managed page that reflects a history of competing interests and does not suit them. Instead, I am arguing that the summary section of the article adequately illustrates the state of the discourse, yet the remainder of the article is a complete mess. So, Andy, I don't think your objection is relevant. Curtd59 If the introduction suits the article, clearly structuring the article to reflect the arguments positioned in the introduction is a solution to the inadequacy of the body of the article.

:99.224.27.14, your suggestions seem excellent. Of course you do not need sources to suggest article structure, although saying this it is clear you have drawn upon your comprehensive knowledge of the field to make this suggestion. Why not be bold and do some editing and see how it pans out? 스토킹 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that this article has generally improved over the past 5 years. It now presents a much more comprehensive view of the subject. Your desire to "simplify" matters glosses over the depth of disagreement in academia over the very nature of intelligence, it's testability, and the degree to which any test must be, by nature only a measure of culturally local social construct. futurebird (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder of Source List on Human Molecular Genetics

I see there is quite a lot of talk on this talk page about "molecular genetics" as a disciplinary perspective on some of the issues in the article, but with few citations of medically reliable sources from that discipline. My former notice of a source list kept in Wikipedian user space on that subject has archived off this talk page, but the source list is still available to any editor who wants to use it to check the best recent secondary sources about human biology or molecular genetics as those subjects related to the topic of the article discussed here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence "see also"

Why is this a "see also" topic? this article is on race. futurebird (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Though less-than-reliable sources (including some utterly obnoxious ones) have tried to argue that there is a 'Jewish race', I've not seen any for the Ashkenazi alone being a 'race'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"According to several studies, Ashkenazi Jews score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviation above the general European average. This corresponds to an IQ of 112–115. Other studies have found somewhat lower values. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US science Nobel Prizes and 25% of the Turing Awards. They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about one half standard deviation, than the European average.[52] See also Ashkenazi intelligence."

I think this should be removed. It is written as if, like much of this article, there is some kind of scientific consensus behind these finding and their relative significance. The word "race" is not mentioned once in the source used to support this paragraph: http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

If there are no further objection I will remove it. futurebird (talk)

I see no reason for it to be here because there is a stand-alone article on the topic, unless (as was reported above, but I haven't confirmed) the stand-alone is a sub-article of this one and content retained here is merely intended to summarize and point to it. Imo we have an uphill battle as it is describing this topic coherently without synth and without trivializing the issue completely with simplistic "yaysay naysay" synopses of the issues involved undergirding the big picture disputes over within-group and between-group analysis of variation. I say either all such disputes over between group differences should be described in a single article, or we should make every effort to focus the scope here on issues to particular group differences characterized as "racial" in the literature. Since the literature of "group difference" will often encompass a grab bag of "differences", and since the definition of "race" is so nebulous, this is easier said than done. Why Ashkenazis enter into the conversation here as opposed to, say, Appalachians, points to how difficult it is to arrive at objective criteria for this topic. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Objection. No contrary evidence has been presented. Here is a review: [58]. That some dispute that for example blacks and whites in the US are races does not change that there are average test differences and much scholarly debate regarding these differences. Many of the proposed causes for the high IQ for this group are unique and are thus not covered by any general discussion.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Say what? Contrary evidence of what? Professor marginalia (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I responded to the claim that these findings are disputed.

One important reason to mention these findings is that high IQ minority groups that are successful have not infrequently been persecuted or been the subject of attempted genocide by the majority. This because their success, if not due to for example a high IQ, may be blamed on some conspiracy or their supposed evil, parasitic nature.(See What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True? Linda S. Gottfredson, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 311-319. See also the book "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker). Thus, Hitler prohibited IQ tests in Nazi Germany because their danger for Nazi ideology. Another high IQ group that are currently persecuted or at risk for this are Chinese in South Asia. See for example the book World on Fire and Overseas Chinese#Discrimination. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rolling back. Ok, didn't mean to hit your particular "hot button" when I ask the question (your response relates to conspiracy theories and I didn't mean to set you a trap). I don't see why Ashkenazi has to be here in this article per WP guidelines nor RS roadmaps. Your answer might make sense to me if I thought the article was to be an instrument in some "crusade". But I don't. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The IQ of Ashkenazi Jews are regularly mentioned and discussed in notable works in the debate. Like in The Bell Curve, The Mismeasure of Man, The 10,000 Year Explosion, Intelligence and How to Get It, and so on. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"The debate" is the weak link here. "The debate" over "intelligence" and what are its empirically appropriate measures is a BIG circle. The inclination to cast or coat rack any intelligence "debate", big circle, as directly relevant to the "race and intelligence debate", smaller circle, is where we'd all benefit in more appropriately delineating issues involved. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue of above average Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is commonly discussed in the academic work on the subject of race and intelligence, so we should discuss it was well. It is obviously topical. TheTrunchbull. (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to illustrate? Professor marginalia (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of Two New Books

I've just read a review of two new books related to this article. I'll have to look for the books at my friendly local libraries. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Synth remains a problem here, so my heads up PSA would be : double-check they qualify as sources for this topic. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New review article: "Human evolutionary genomics: ethical and interpretive issues"

The very interesting review article "Human evolutionary genomics: ethical and interpretive issues" has just been published.[59] Some of the points:

1. Several new technologies and genetic databases recently allow the detection of genes which have been under evolutionary selection in different humans populations.
2. Several such genes under evolutionary selection, and their functions, have been described in African, Asian, and European populations. They include genes for infectious diseases resistance in African populations, genes regarding skin color in Asian and European populations, genes causing lactose tolerance in European and African populations, and genes promoting adaption to high altitude in Tibetian populations.
3. It is similarly possible that genes affecting cognition or behavior and that have been under recent evolutionary selection in certain populations may be detected. Genes for complex traits may however develop more slowly and their effect may be difficult to separate from culture.
4. One should be prepared for the discovery of such genes.
5. Many researchers are now studying the evolution of genes involved in cognitive development.
6. Any single gene affecting complex traits such as behavior is likely to have a weak effect.
7. Due to the sensitive area researchers should very carefully determine that selection have occurred and the function of the genes.
8. Researchers and PR departments should also be careful about presenting results by explaining limitations and using precise language (like "IQ" instead of "intelligence"). The role of complex traits usually being affected by many genes and the environment should be explained. It may be best to describe genes as being associated with or uncertainly predicting traits. One should be careful with terms such as "selection" and "mutation" because the public often uses them differently than scientists.
9. One should explain that different human populations have not evolved from one another in a sequence with some being more recent and advanced but that all human populations descend from the same common ancestral population and that current different populations may be viewed as distant cousins.
10. Racial membership is at best an uncertain indicator of traits and individuals should be treated as individuals.
11. Even if not all people are equal in a genetic sense this does not affect their moral worth. If a group has disadvantages in some area, such as IQ, this may be an argument for supportive social policies.
12. We now stand on the "brink" of potential breakthrough discoveries.

I think the Wikipedia article could incorporate many of these points from the review article. Thoughts? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't reviewed. Let's cut to the chase. What does that article have to say about THIS topic. Focus. Absent Synth. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It discusses genetic population differences in cognition and behavior and takes up IQ as an example several times.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Elaborate please. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One example being that even if these new methods for detecting selected genes in different human population find that not all people are equal in a genetic sense this does not affect their moral worth. If a group has disadvantages in some area, such as IQ, this may be an argument for supportive social policies. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Race" groups? Again, there is a SYNTH prob we still haven't completely cleaned up in the article now. What does it say about This Topic ... that is what is it they (its authors) say that are the dot connectors. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are arguing? The review does not claim that anything is proven regarding IQ. But they note that recently several new genetic research methods have become available which likely soon will reveal much more about genetic group differences and discuss the ethical and interpretative issues of this especially for sensitive areas like cognition and behover. Including regarding IQ. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well..WP should just sit tight then and wait for these "soon to be revealed" insights come to fruition. It doesn't belong in the article yet. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That new research methods affecting the area have recently become available is relevant. As noted above there are also points about group differences in general, ethics regarding group IQ differences, and public misunderstandings in this area. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Relevance" should be spelled out in the article pretty straightforwardly. In other words, "relevance" to this topic must be defined in terms of its authors, not you. I admit I haven't read it yet...maybe they (its authors) have done. Have they? I'm asking. If not, drop it. If yes, it may merit further discussion here. I'm just trying to cut thru the /*blank*/ road to nowhere posts all too often thrown out like explosive devices intended to befuddle and deflect editors off task.Professor marginalia (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As stated, the article takes up the application to population differences in cognition and behavior with IQ as one example. I again feel I am starting to repeat myself and going around in circles. Unless there are new arguments further discussion may not be not productive. I would suggest reading the paper and I hope other editors will comment.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well..there are lots of "group differences" that have nothing do do with race, no matter how it how weirdly or idiosyncratically it's been defined so far. Male/female are "group differences": but not "race" group differences. Young/Old are group differences but not "race" group differences. You sent me to read the article myself to understand how it's relevant since you can't explain it. Even though you urged us to "incorporate" it?? Maybe I'm just ridiculously syllogistic towards this, but this makes no sense me and instead seems the kind of road-to-nowhere bs that too much time is wasted on. If you know SHOW IT to me. If you don't, shut up!Professor marginalia (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is not talking about sex or age groups. It is talking about racial groups. If you do not have access to the whole article then have a look at the free material that even have a phylogenetic tree and pictures of old claims about racial appearances: [60] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This bit might be applicable to our article:

...evolutionary genomicists must help audiences to avoid the pitfalls of common misconceptions of genetics, such as genetic reductionism, essentialism or determinism. Such oversimplified pictures of genetic causation are still abundant and have been used as justification for dismantling initiatives such as the Head Start Program in the USA.^[38] This program provides for educational and social services for children from low-income families, and has been shown to be effective in improving social and cognitive development in participants.^[39] However, findings of genetic variation in traits involved in cognitive function have been used to suggest that environmental factors, such as educational interventions, are not influential on phenotype.^[38] Nothing that is known about genes supports such fatalistic attitudes, but they remain pervasive and provide further opportunities for the misapplication of discoveries in evolutionary genomics.

(38) J. Rushton, A. Jensen, Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychol. Public Policy Law, 11 (2005), pp. 235–294
(39) J. Love et al. The effectiveness of early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: lessons for policy and programs. Dev. Psychol., 41 (2005), pp. 883–901

—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may be an important public misconception. I do not think there is any researcher denying the importance of environmental factors or that for example the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project has caused lasting IQ gains. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Researchers and PR departments should also be careful about presenting results by explaining limitations and using precise language (like 'IQ' instead of 'intelligence')." This suggestion from the newly published article sounds like a helpful suggestion for the Wikipedia article under discussion on this talk page and many related Wikipedia articles. Thanks for the citation. I have just asked the behavioral genetics scholars I meet with weekly at the local research university if they think we should discuss this article in our journal club. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Citing Rushton & Jensen's "Thirty Years" article as justifying "dismantling initiatives such as the Head Start Program" is rather dishonest. They only discuss Head Start's effectiveness in regards to how much it reduces the racial IQ gap. It is purely descriptive, not prescriptive of what government policy should be in regards to funding such programs. The only prescription that the article makes in regards to public policy is a rather general statement that it shouldn't be based on a false model of assuming all racial differences are the product of socio-economic forces.B.B. (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Browsing through the Love et al article on Head Start, I'm beginning to wonder whether Vitti et al read any of the articles they are citing. Rushton & Jensen's point out (1) the environmental variance in cognitive ability while high in young age groups tends to decrease as they got older & (2) children in Head Start and other such programs showed significant short-term improvements in cognitive ability, but the effects start to taper off in the long term. So to contradict the claims in Rushton & Jensen's article, they cite a study on early Head Start that begins around birth and ends at 3 years of age. Vitti et al council against "common misconceptions of genetics, such as genetic reductionism, essentialism or determinism", but all they can do is offer up an over-simplistic caricature of the hereditarian position to conveniently knock down. A paper that is so blatantly inaccurate as this really shouldn't be cited for anything other than as a great example of academic incompetence.B.B. (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that review of the source, interesing but without sources; worthless in helping improve this article. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)