Talk:Intelligence (journal)

Date of founding?

I arrived here from Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence, which discusses an editorial which appears to have been (re)published in this journal in 1997, yet this page claims that the journal was founded in 2000. I suspect there may be transfers from one publisher to another involved or similar. Does anyone know and can they edit the article(s) to remove the inconsistency? Martinp (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

editorial board

I was asked to have a look. There is fairly general agreement here that the listing of all the members of an editorial board, no matter how distinguished, is promotional. (the only person who disagreed in the last discussion seems to have been representing a journal publisher). It is additionally wrong to use external links within the body of an article in any context at all for people who do not have Wikipedia pages-- see WP:EL This is not encyclopedic information--it is perfectly visible on the publisher's site, which is where it belongs. If the publisher wishes, he is certainly encouraged to link distinguished scientist's names on his site to their Wikipedia biographies. That's a reasonable use of Wikipedia. We are here for the purpose of providing information about notable people for use wherever it is wanted. We are not here for the purpose of providing internal links to puff out an article--and a journal like this that hardly needs it.

What it does need is:

1. a list of all former editors in chief
2. Clarification of just what is the first issue, and the frequency of publication.
3. The current impact factor from JCR, and, if desired, number of articles published.
4. Circulation figures, which can be sourced from various places, including Ulrich's
5. The major indexing services in its field that include it.
6. The number of libraries having subscriptions
7. references to the journal itself in other published works.
8. just possibly, a list of the two or three most famous articles that have been published in the journal. (the fame can be taken to be = most cited, in order to have a reference for the fact)

DGG (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Everymorning, didn't see this talk page or WP:JWG before now. I have shortened the list to people who have their own Wikipedia pages, presumably that means they are notable enough to list. Deleet (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

This article could be considerably improved by discussing how this journal fits among other psychology journals that publish articles on similar topics. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Update ranking (2018)

The ranking is given for 2014, however surely one can get newer data. However, it's unclear which to report as e.g. SCOPUS has 2 entries for the journal here. Deleet (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Racist journal

This journal has published racist pseudoscience. Richard Haier, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Gerhard Meisenberg, Arthur R. Jensen are all involved with it as is Emil Kirkegaard (Deleet). [1]

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Lynn as a racist and white supremacist [2] 89.163.221.47 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

On the accusation of pseudoscience

The article states: "It has been criticised for including on its editorial board Gerhard Meisenberg and Richard Lynn, the latter with no obvious relevant affiliations, both of whom support pseudoscientific theories of race and intelligence, along with eugenics" I attempted to edit "pseudoscientific" to "allegedly pseudoscientific" twice, for

a) it is unclear what the word "pseudoscientific" refers to; if it refers to the question of race and intelligence, one might have strong opinions about that subject, but it is plain dishonesty to brand it unscientific. It is an ongoing debate in the scientific community with serious arguments and studies from both sides. The "Race and intelligence" wiki page makes no mention of pseudoscience and clearly describes that the ongoing debate deals not even with the existence of group differences, but whether they are environmental or heritable. Futherhmore neither the wiki article of Gerhard Meisenberg or of Richard Lynn makes any mention of pseudoscience whatsoever. Therefore the accusation of pseudoscience seems to be partisanship, or at the very least needs much more further clarification;

b) if it refers to eugenics, the wording is flawed and confusing, and should be changed to reflect just that;

c) the 3 citations given for the pseudoscientific claim are 3 articles that only refer to eugenics.

My attempt to remove what seems for me to be partianship has been reverted twice by @Randykitty: with the explanation "'psudosceince' is pretty much established" and " nothing 'allegedly' about it and very clear what it refers to," although both explanations fail to address my concerns. So perhaps Randykitty would like to futher elaborate on the reason of reverting the edit and provide additional citations. Merewif (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by policies, sources and consensus. It seems that the material is supported by sources considered reliable and that more than one editor reverted when the pseudoscience related material was removed (neutral point of view is met via reliable sources and there is consensus that the inclusion is due to meet the policy about pseudoscience). —PaleoNeonate – 07:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit dispute

Regarding this disputed edit. The source is clearly stating their opinion about the respectability of the journal to provide context that their criticism of Lynn should not tar the journal as a whole. What prompted them to comment on the respectability of the journal is irrelevant, what matters is the source provided an opinion of the journal and that is what we can source. To say the source is reliable for one opinion but not another opinion is a violation of WP:NPOV and could be seen to be POV pushing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it belongs. Not everything in the journal is good or WP:Due, same as many journals, but we have to say the positive with the negative. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Since science doesn’t care about good, the studies just are. The key is Can it be replicated or not. Sounds like a naive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.39.67 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

BLP violation

Hi @Greyfell:, I am not going to revert anymore as I do not want to edit war. The sources specifically uses the term “accused” so how are you justifying making this edit to remove the word ‘alleged’? Is there a source that states it as a fact? I said in the edit summary about strong feelings because I was empathising with other editors rather than accusing. I do think you should revert if you do not have a source for your edit.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit as 7 days have passed without further commentary. We should follow the meaning in the source closely for WP:BLP reasons. I think that a source could be quite easily found for Lynn, but not necessarily for Meisenberg. However, if many sources are used for a statement like this, we should be cautious of WP:SYNTH. --Pudeo (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources already support this. Their position on eugenics isn't contested, and scientific racism is by a wide margin the main reason they are even noteworthy at all.

Per the first cited source: Publishing well-researched papers that happen to be written by eugenicists is one thing, but putting them [Lynn and Meisenberg] in positions of editorial control is quite another.

Per the second cited source: Mankind Quarterly’s editor-in-chief, Gerhard Meisenberg, told me last month that there were likely to be biological differences in intelligence between racial groups, which he believes will eventually be discovered by genetics. He referred to “low-IQ countries”, including Pakistan. Meisenberg, a professor at the Ross University School of Medicine, based in Dominica, says: “The question of whether there are genetic ability differences between people in different countries is perhaps the most fundamental question in development economics."

Per the third: Among those known to have attended was Richard Lynn, a psychologist whose belief in racial differences in intelligence has seen him accused of promoting “scientific racism” and Gerhard Meisenberg, editor of the journal Mankind Quarterly, which has been described by some as a “white supremacist” publication.

I have no objection to including "white supremacists", but I doubt that would resolve this issue. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no objective RS stating that Meisenberg is a "eugenecist", so that should be removed. And the Saini article is clearly labeled as an opinion piece, and does not constitute a RS—anything based on that should be immediately excised. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You do not get dismiss sourced by claiming they are not "objective". Reliable sources have documented this. As for Saini, she has published an entire book about this topic, including lengthy discussions of Meisenberg's pro-eugenics views. A book written by a respected science journalist and published by a mainstream publisher is a WP:RS. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So cite the book if you want to claim it's an RS—but it's simply not true that anything written in any book by any respected journalist is considered an RS for purposes of citing fact. As to opinion pieces, per WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." That seems pretty clear, no? And I don't know why you're harping on "objective"—the article fails to cite any RS where it describes Meisenberg as a "eugenicist". And there's no reason not to write that Saini alleges or accuses Meisenberg of being a "eugenicist", since it's ultimately a somewhat subjective characterization—so why not clearly attribute that characterization in the text of the article? There are surely respected experts in the sciences (not just journalists) who would not characterize Meisenberg so. And is someone who argues that, on average, East Asians are more intelligent than whites a "white supremacist"? Alleging genetic differences in ability between populations is hardly the same as supporting "eugenics", which is about altering reproductive patterns to effect "better" progeny—is anyone who acknowledges the possibility of genetic contributions to Ethiopian running ability (or the lack of pygmies in the NBA) a "eugenecist"? I think not. Lastly, I'd so appreciate it if you wouldn't tell me what I do and do not get to do. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Description of the paper with: "included pseudoscience findings about intelligence differences between races"

I looked at the sourced article and there were no further elaborations re: in what sense the findings about intelligence differences were pseudoscientific which is definitely necessary. I'm adding this section because as far as I know papers merely describing that there are differences in measured intelligence b/w different self-identified populations/races/ethnicities, however you want to call them, are not pseudoscience, they're the current psychological consensus. The debate rather revolves around the reasons for the gap -- nature or nurture --, not its existence. This consensus is reflected in the Wikipedia article on racial differences in intelligence that clearly states

A 2001 meta-analysis of the results of 6,246,729 participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude found a difference in average scores between black people and white people of 1.1 standard deviations. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate settings (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).[56]

— https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Findings about intelligence differences between races are not pseudoscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CF:1F24:6C00:90D6:B344:B565:1073 (talk)

The quote from Smithsonian Magazine which you sought to cut states that this journal has "occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races." Nothing there contradicts the fact that different groups have historically tended to score differently on standardized tests. It just means that some of the conclusions published in this journal about these differences have been –– asccording to Smithsonian –– pseudoscientific. This is 100% in line with the strong consensus of Wikipedia editors established over at Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#RfC_on_racial_hereditarianism. Generalrelative (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not all "findings" are equal. Using scientific-seeming ideas to promote fundamentally unscientific ideas is pseudoscience. Recognizing testing discrepancies can lead to a lot of interesting areas of research, but it can also, just as easily, lead to pseudoscientific ideas, some of which are more transparently obvious than others. Framing this as merely the debate between "nature vs. nurture" is too simplistic to be workable. Fringe advocates really like that perspective because it's a convenient way to side-step all that important nuance and context and appeal to people's supposed common sense. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Biased usage of "eugenics" and "pseudoscience"

I am not here to defend the weak and biased, cherry-picked data based "research" of Richard Lynn. But a WP article on one of the most eminent journals in psychology on the most scientifically sound and externally valid of all psychological constructs should not give the impression that that journal is tainted by pseudoscience or eugenics and somehow suspect, unless WP uses similar standards elsewhere. If Intelligence publishes pseudoscience, including stuff by Lynn or Jensen I am very critical of methodologically (not to speak of their interpretations of their doubtful data), then most of social psychology and differential psychology and most of sociology and economics must be considered pseudoscience: they are full of weak correlative methods, cherry-picked variables or experiments with doubtful external validity, doubtful, ideologically informed constructs and research questions, p-hacking, publication bias and even not so rare cases of outright data falsification. Regarding eugenics, it is routinely practiced in the US by users of IVF clinics, users of sperm banks (who tend to be picky about donors' racial and educational characteristics) and users of selective abortion of genetically atypical children. I personally have a genetic syndrome that textbooks on reproductive genetics say should be reason to counsel the prospective parents that they might want to abort or try to find a "healthy" donor; guess what I think about that. But I don't remember eugenic topics coming up at all in all of my extensive reading of "Intelligence" articles, and if people like Lynn publish eugenicist fantasies elsewhere, this should not feature in an encyclopedia article about "Intelligence". 2.201.98.116 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources have to say, and they are clear on this issue. That standard is followed everywhere. MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" might still be off topic in a WP article. Marc Hauser has produced scientific fraud and has published in "Science" (which is no coincidence, as "Science" has a bias for noteworthy results and those are more likely to be fraudulent or not replicable). There are lots and lots of reputable sources on the Hauser scandal and other stuff Science published that turned out to be junk, yet the WP article on "Science" doesn't mention any of them. My main point is that the material simply doesn't deserve such a prominent position in an article on a journal that is the major journal in its field, and if it is mentioned, it should be in a lower section titled controversies, not placed so prominently.

Also, there are degrees of appropriate reliability. The Smithsonian is a pop science publication, Angela Saini is a journalist with an engineering degree, not even speaking of the "New Statesman". These sources do not have better qualifications to opine about the scientific character of research published in "Intelligence" (I am referring to the label "pseudoscience" here) than the editorial board of "Intelligence", including even people like Lynn, and the community of Intelligence psychologists who this journal serves. 2.201.98.116 (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonetheless, all of these 'degrees of appropriate reliability' rank high above an anonymous person on a talk page's opinion. I'll stick with the reliable sources, thanks. As to the editorial board's opinion, see WP:MANDY. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)