Talk:International Society for Intelligence Research

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

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 these 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. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability

As a reminder, interviews, press releases, and passing mentions are not sufficient for establishing WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The society meets wikipedia criteria for notability. Along with most scientific associations of note, it is a leading body in the field, recognized as such by the majority of expert researchers in the field of human intelligence. It has occupied this position for almost two decades, as it comes up to its 20th anniversary. It is formally associated with one the leading specialist journal on scientific topic. It is viewed by others outside the the field as a leading organization as indicated by lifetime awardees and invited interviewees who are acknowledged and notable experts in their fields Tim bates (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

New Statesman

@PaleoNeonate: My main reason for avoiding the phrases its members, publications and events is that the New Statesman source does not cover all three in detail. Their main criticism of ISIR is "the tolerance afforded to eugenicists--" - due to Emil Kirkegaard speaking in their conference and the Intelligence's editorial board including two eugenicists. So I'd say "associates" of ISIR is the somewhat more accurate.

It also does not directly call anything about ISIR "racist pseudo-science". The news article is mostly about the London Conference on Intelligence, so it's important to accurately reflect what they specifically said about ISIR - ISIR conferences are different. The New Statesman's text Today’s white nationalists and neo-Nazis make extensive use of racist pseudoscience to bolster their political arguments. -- Our investigation into the London Conference on Intelligence uncovered... does not refer to the ISIR even implicitly IMO. --Pudeo (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The most direct judgement of ISIR in the New Statesman article is that it is very far from being pseudoscientific: "the infiltration of mainstream academia by eugenicists is even more complex than this. After we exposed his involvement with eugenicists, Toby Young pointed out that the conference at which he actually spoke, that of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), was “super-respectable” and attended by “numerous world-renowned academics”. He is entirely correct. The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet ... " 73.149.246.232 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Using boldface for the part you like makes the cherry-picking more obvious, but not more appropriate. Here's a bit more of the paragraph you cut off: ...Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly...[3]

The point of this paragraph, and the whole source, is that the scientific racism's academic legitimacy is "complex", and that (pseudo)scientific racism is still around because it preserves a veneer of academic legitimacy. It is possible to be pseudoscientific and also be world-renowned (just look at Deepak Chopra.) Removing a quote from its context in an attempt to prove a point directly opposed to the one made by the source is not good scholarship. Your opinion, or Toby Young's opinion for that matter, are not particularly relevant here. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have some trouble with reading, and are engaged in stalking. I have not cherry picked anything; I am simply reporting the author's evaluation of ISIR itself, which is distinct from his larger point about (alleged) "eugenicists" infiltrating ISIR and its journal. I'd have to reread the article to check, but what I quoted seems to be the totality of what the author says about the academic reputation of ISIR/Intelligence. He implies that the reputation of mainstream academics who find themselves in the same room, program or masthead with these nefarious Eugenicist Infiltrators may come to suffer (cf. discussion of Pinker), and might even be threatening them that they will suffer this due to his own prolific reporting on the topic, but there is nothing to indicate that he asserts ISIR's reputation has in fact suffered or that it has become an outlet for pseudoscience, racism, eugenics and the other buzzwords that he (rather dishonestly) throws around. He dislikes their choice of conference invitees and editorial board, which is a different matter. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have posts on this talk page dating back to September 2018, but perhaps you had "some trouble with reading" that part of the talk page. Your apparent unfamiliarity with how watchlists work on Wikipedia is not an excuse for personal attacks. The article's author "dislikes" them for a reason, which is that they are closely associated with pseudoscientific racism, including eugenics. Whitewashing this as "buzzwords" is unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with watchlists. The alternative interpretation (to stalking) is even less flattering, constantly monitoring and policing large numbers of Talk pages to immediately suppress any Wrong Thinking. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that "buzzwords" is a whitewash, just not of any of the things and people you had in mind. It was actually an unnecessarily polite description of student pseudojournalist Ben van der Meerwe's writing in his article; a more accurate term would have been "pathological lying". With the possible exception of Richard Lynn (and in some ways including Lynn), every single academic described by vdMeerwe is slandered and assigned these buzzwords where they don't apply, e.g., calling an (behavioral) environmentalist a eugenicist. Note that "eugenics" here means "racial eugenics", a phrase used multiple times in th article and I'm not sure that applies even to Lynn; it certainly does not apply to any of the others described. That's in addition to inventing words not spoken or written by his targets and putting them between quotation marks. If you want to compare vdM's slander piece, apparently not fact checked or vetted by lawyers, to a piece by a real journalist, see the coverage of the same issue by Angela Saini in the Guardian. You will note that she avoids the emotional and manipulative yellow journalism terminology such as repeating the words "racist pseudoscience" 20 times like some religious incantation. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)