Jump to content

Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

The claim made is that the "Eyferth Study" is an adoption study. It is not. It is an admixture study. Marty Martinson (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page on it: Eyferth study. It is a mixture between an admixture study and an adoption study. The children did not have much contact with their biological fathers, so were not affected by whatever environment related to the fathers. However, they did grow up with their biological. Thus, under some assumptions, this allows for causal inference of the effects of genetics vs. environment. --AndewNguyen (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hereditarianism vs homeopathy, alien abductions, Bigfoot, creationism etc

The following type of argument appeared several times in the RfC and now on the talk page, mostly from NightHeron. I expect it to keep appearing and it deserves its own discussion. A typical example from above:

We don't say "There's no direct evidence that the Universe was created in 7 days around 4000 years ago;" or "There's no direct evidence that homeopathy can work better than modern medicine."

The RfC had similar statements about alien abductions, Holocaust denial, and yogic flying.

The problem with these comparisons is that "one of these theories is not like the others". The differences indicate why IQ hereditarianism is not scientifically fringe (which does not rule out its being institutionally fringe or politically fringe, both are true to some extent but are not what is meant by a "fringe theory"). All the other theories acquired their fringe status by criteria that would disqualify any theory from being considered scientific, regardless of its social popularity, political support, history, or moral character of its followers. Examples of criteria for fringeness:

  • not even wrong, no empirical consequences, no predictions. Scientists can believe in it or not and it would not change anything in the work they do. (e.g. God or Creation)
  • impossible to disprove
  • proof could theoretically be done (just film the aliens landing and abducting people!), but requires several other amazing unknown phenomena to be proved in the process (aliens exist, can travel to earth, and do so with no other consequences beyond abduction)
  • ad hoc hypothesis not specific to the data ("aliens" could be replaced by any other hypothetical creature such as unicorns, "abduction" by any other unobserved process)
  • easy and cheap to prove if true, but proponents refuse to do a controlled demonstration (e.g. yogic flying, psychokinetic spoon-bending)
  • contradicts well established physics or requires unknown new physics (homeopathy)
  • contradicts gigantic interconnected body of evidence for accepted theory (e.g. standard account of the Holocaust) with a tiny body of evidence and no specific indication of how all the accepted evidence can be wrong without the alternative theory having been widely noticed and supported. Requires conspiracy theories to explain this, discredit existing data, and reconcile discrepancies.

For both the genetic and environmental explanations of IQ differences, there is mostly agreement between proponents and opponents as to what would constitute evidence for and against each side of the argument, what sort of experiments can be done to obtain such evidence, and that many of these experiments are feasible (or have already been done). Nothing in either explanation requires radical new principles of physics or biology. The most likely form of proof is the same for each side: polygenic scores and regression on environmental factors are conceptually the same, and for either one to be convincing, data of both types have to be included in the model so that genetic and nongenetic factors can compete statistically. This is all normal science and pretty symmetrical for the two sides. The asymmetry is in the levels of political and institutional support. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And? Guy (help!) 11:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The upshot is that since the hereditarian position is not actually scientifically fringe, and the state of the scientific evidence is not FALSEBALANCE but a "TRUEBALANCE" of the evidence and an unbroken impasse between opposing theories, our activist editor friends should not pretend that arcane Wikipedia voting decision processes create new facts about the science. The normal direction of logic is that a theory becomes fringe because it lacks evidence. Here, it is explicitly being used in the opposite direction: an administrative determination that a theory is fringe in the eyes of Wikipedia editors, constitutes a proof that there cannot have been evidence. Clearly that's ridiculous and is far outside the scope of anything the RfC could have decided. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

New ArbCom case

Notice to editors has now been given. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


An ArbCom case has been opened at [1] by User:AndewNguyen, who did not post a notice here and did not notify me that he was specifically accusing me of a BLP violation as part of his list of charges. I've never before been involved in an ArbCom case, so I hope that more experienced editors can lead the way in dealing with this new attack by apologists for scientific racism.NightHeron (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, This is not a neutral way to post a talk page notice of an arbcom case. Not even close. Could be interpreted as canvassing as well as a personal attack. You've literally just called User:AndewNguyen an "apologist for scientific racism". Be WP:CIVIL. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
According to what I've read of ArbCom rules, it was AndewNguyen who was supposed to notify affected users, including obviously the contributors to this talk page. He failed to do that, and didn't bother to notify me that he was making accusations against me at ArbCom. The way I found out was from your user talk-page, which I looked at to see whether you'd replied to my request for you to self-revert after violating 1RR. There I saw that LiteratureGeek had informed you of the ArbCom case, asked you to participate there, and provided the link. Aren't you a little bothered by AndewNguyen's flouting of the rules? NightHeron (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, Yes, but that doesn't make your message here any less bad either. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've struck through most of the text. NightHeron (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing false balance from lead

I removed false balance from the lead, in keeping with the recent decisions at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (see [2]) and at WP:Administrators' noticeboard (see [3]) that the claim that some races are genetically inferior to other races in intelligence is fringe. NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This is an appropriate edit which improves the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The current wording is neutral and accurate. Please make one change at a time. Reverted. The current wording is in line with the outcome of the RfC; the lead clearly states "At present, there is no direct evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component". What WP:FALSEBALANCE are you removing in the lead? The lead doesn't have citations but from what I can see generally summarises the rest of the article well. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We don't have to look far to see how easy it is to grind things to a halt by expecting that every minute change be discussed to death. The many RFCs show a clear appetite for change from the wider community. Your opinion on the lead is noted, but without the ability to make changes like this, the article will stagnate... or is that the point? Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The claim "no direct evidence" implies that there's some other type of evidence. In the numerous discussions of this, apologists for scientific racism claimed that there's circumstantial evidence of genetic racial inferiority. There were also other places in the lead that violated WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't have to re-discuss every little point, now that a community consensus has been reached and overwhelmingly upheld at WP:Administrators' noticeboard that claims of racial genetic inferiority in intelligence are fringe.
I put a warning on User:Insertcleverphrasehere's talk-page about edit-warring, after the second revert in less than 2 hours, which violates the 1RR protection on this page. NightHeron (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Other examples of false balance in the lead: is the subject of much dispute and remains controversial among researchers. My revision removes these violations of WP:FRINGE and avoids weasel wording. NightHeron (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This was previously discussed here. See this comment by user:Sirfurboy in particular. "No direct evidence" is a very close paraphrase of the wording used by one of the article's sources (the Nisbett et al. paper). The outcome of the RFC can't supersede the requirement for this article to reflect what reliable sources say. 2600:1004:B11A:E74E:DD3F:340B:3C9B:851E (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. The fact that the phrase "no direct evidence" occurred in someone's paper is irrelevant. In the context of the lead of this article the phrase gives the misleading impression that some other (unspecified) type of evidence exists. Based on all the lengthy arguments you've made over the last few months, I assume that this is precisely why you're fighting to keep the wording "no direct evidence;" that is, you presumably want the lead to suggest that there's some unspecified indirect evidence.
We don't say "There's no direct evidence that the Universe was created in 7 days around 4000 years ago;" or "There's no direct evidence that homeopathy can work better than modern medicine." When talking about fringe theories, one says "no evidence," not "no direct evidence." NightHeron (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Will this never end? This biased wording needs to be reversed. Can I do it or do we need to wait to avoid edit warring? Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer: You're a much more experienced wikipedian than I am, but my understanding of 1RR is that different users (but not I) can revert now or whenever, in order to carry out the judgment at WP:FTN and WP:AN concerning the fringe nature of scientific racism. As the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out, there's been an unfortunate history of this article being "owned" by a small number of editors who seem determined to give credence to the fringe belief that certain races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence. I think we should first get a stable version of the lead that is compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, and then proceed to fix other sections of this article. For example, I noticed that the section Race and intelligence#Brain size starts out with a reasonable first paragraph, and then the second paragraph gives a false balance and again gives credence to the fringe view alleging racial inferiority of black people. I'm starting with the lead, since that's the most widely read part of the article, but there's other work to be done.
If the usual group of "owner"-editors of this page resort to edit-warring, bludgeoning, and other tactics to obstruct the consensus on scientific racism, then hopefully some of the more experienced editors will know what to do. NightHeron (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, Do you have a reliable source (cited in the article or that can be added) that simply and plainly says "there is no evidence"? That seems the simple solution here. I don't particulalry object to that particular chage if a source can be found. "is the subject of much dispute" and "remains controversial among researchers" seem plainly true facts to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Insisting on a source for every change of wording (when the lead doesn't even require detailed sourcing) is just WP:WIKILAWYERING. A change of phrase so as to prevent a misleading weasel-wording is permitted without having to cite a source for the change in wording. NightHeron (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
And when you hold out for patent nonsense like "remains controversial among researchers", it is really difficult to WP:AGF. Can you name any serious researcher who entertains the unscientific concept of 'race'? This 'debate' has exceeded its use-by date and a decision made: it must be implemented without further delay. The changes made by NightHeron should stand. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
We all understand that WP:Verifiability doesn't apply to this article anymore, right? As SMcCandlish pointed out both during the RFC and afterwards, the RFC was very explicitly an attempt to use community consensus to bypass the requirement for the contents of the article to be based on what's stated in reliable sources, and now we're seeing the results of that. I suppose it's good that NightHeron is at least being honest about the lack of need for sources now, in his comment above. 2600:1004:B14F:A9BF:37:3B4A:BC6F:CB5D (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
2600:1004, this comment is not helpful. Further comments like this will result in sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
We really need an FAQ on the talk page to cover recurring bogus arguments like "race doesn't exist" that, even if correct in some respects, have no bearing on the narrow, reductive scientific question of genetic explanations for measured group differences. The idea that "race doesn't exist" is not taken seriously as an argument on that subject even by the most vocal scientific opponents of hereditarian arguments. As long as people self-report their "race" consistently, and both the genetic and IQ testing is statistically meaningful in that individual results don't change too much based on details like day and time of the test or weather conditions, then this is a meaningful scientific question whose answer can be obtained with today's technology at moderate but not prohibitive cost, if enough people and funding agencies were interested. In the meantime there are arguments about correlations and statistical patterns, very similar to the ones used to determine that smoking causes lung cancer or BRCA1 causes breast cancer. We don't have "direct evidence" on those either, but that seems to be OK for most purposes. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem with rephrasing as "no evidence" or "no scientific evidence" is that it is false, and constitutes science denialism. That a variety of evidence exists for genetic explanations is implicitly or explicitly conceded by almost everyone with relevant expertise (i.e., psychometrics of intelligence; behavioral genetics; statistical genetics) who has published on the topic, and the actual issue is about the strength of the evidence and arguments on the two sides of the issue. For instance, James Flynn, the leading anti-hereditarian opponent to Jensen, wrote a book on the subject in 1980 that said Jensen had until that point intellectually "massacre[d]" his critics, and Flynn's position has always been that the hereditarian arguments should be engaged seriously. He has made the same point every decade or so since then, and more recently people like Pinker (neutral) and Ceci (environmentalist) have argued the same. It would be pretty strange to write such things if the state of affairs were "No Evidence Exists".
Certainly there are many, many people from areas that are tangential or irrelevant to the narrow scientific question of race-and-IQ genetics -- areas such as history, law, philosophy, critical race theory, cultural anthropology, Afro-American studies, ethics, journalism, social psychology, education, and cultural studies -- who make these kinds of absolute denialist claims. The strength, confidence and vitriol of the claims generally increases in proportion to the authors' personal inability to parse the psychometric literature. Most of the sources posted at the RfC were of this type, the only exceptions being discredited works by Gould and Kamin (and his follower Joseph) written for popular audiences and generally ignored by both the hereditarians and their opponents. As Turkheimer called it in his review: "science denial".
For starters, there is a lot of statistical evidence for genetic explanations, and against environmental ones, beyond differences in average scores. A large number of patterns in the data that should appear if there were big environmental effects on group IQ differences, do not exist (and people have looked hard to find them). The variability of black IQ is the same or lower than for white IQ, when it should be higher if environment were king. Intelligence appears to be "made of the same stuff" (same factor structure beyond g) in different groups, and exerts its effects on education, income etc in the same ways (indistinguishable correlation matrices for IQ together with many other measures). If heavily environmental causes were at work, differences should be seen, and simple interventions would be relatively easy to find that can permanently raise IQ by large amounts, at least in black Americans. Nobody has found any interventions that work in any group, despite gargantuan monetary and status incentives for people to find them. There are many, many indirect arguments of this kind that can be given, that are rarely addressed, much less refuted, in the anti-hereditarian literature. Which is not to say that it's impossible, or that Turkheimer and Nisbett could not conclusively win their war tomorrow based on new discoveries or amazing new theoretical arguments. But it is a gigantic inversion of reality to claim that "no evidence" or "no scientific evidence" exists. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The refusal to accept consensus and the WP:WALLOFTEXT by IP-editor 73.xxx strengthen the case that jps was correct to propose excluding IP-accounts, see above [4]. A typical example of the false accusations against other editors by IP-editor 73.xxx is: the RFC was very explicitly an attempt to use community consensus to bypass the requirement for the contents of the article to be based on what's stated in reliable sources, and now we're seeing the results of that. I suppose it's good that NightHeron is at least being honest about the lack of need for sources now, in his comment above. I merely pointed out that the lead of this article is not sourced (and is not required to be sourced), and in any case one doesn't need a source in order to make a word change from "no direct evidence" to "no evidence" or "no scientific evidence" since the former is just weasel-wording and the latter is correct. The RfC was based on reliable sources, but not the pseudoscientific sources of white supremacists. I won't try to match 73.xxx's bludgeoning, since these issues have already been debated ad nauseum, and a consensus has been reached at WP:FTN and overwhelmingly approved by admins at WP:AN. NightHeron (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(1) I did not write the material you quoted as mine. (2) What you call "reliable sources" in your RfC were specifically called "science denial" (Joseph's book, which is an update of Kamin) and "fringe science", "confused and incoherent" and much else (Gould) by experts quoted in that discussion. Those sources, along with all the others from nonexperts in critical race theory and the like, are, as I said, ignored even in anti-hereditarian works by people like Turkheimer and Nisbett, because they are discredited as works of science and in Gould's case and that of the nonexperts raise issues that are irrelevant even-if-correct. (3) Repeatedly making (false) histrionic assertions about particular users that they are racists, alt-right, white supremacist, anti-Semitic, etc is obviously a gross violation of the groundrules for continued participation here. That doesn't change when done in passive aggressive double-negatives to maintain the fiction that you aren't actually crossing the bright lines that you like to sidle up to. (4) You posted 100 comments on this matter at the RfC and RSN, many of them extremely long BLUDGEON and WALLOFTEXT (in addition to the personal invective) that were called out as such. Treating these topics as your private property and a stage for histrionic drama, dismissing inconvenient replies as overly long or motivated by racism, is not a standard of reasonable conduct on Wikipedia. I haven't yet looked at the link to the Arbcom case, but I am on the record having accurate predicted the nature of the RfC and stating that you should have been topic banned long ago. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(1) I apologize for confusing you with the other IP-editor. In the future, please indent your comments when they follow immediately after comments of someone else who's expressing similar sentiments. (2)-(4) I'll be happy to reply to these accusations if a responsible editor wants me to. The same goes for the ludicrous accusations of the other IP-editor (2600.xxx) that I just noticed were made at the ArbCom site. If the purpose of the two IP-editors is to get revenge on me for the RfC not going their way and for racist pseudoscience now being treated as fringe, I don't think that's how Wikipedia works. NightHeron (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, good edit, thanks. Guy (help!) 11:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully NightHeron will continue to get good feedback and support as needed for future edits to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and high standards. Gandydancer (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Gandydancer, for your support. I'm happy to continue working on this article to eliminate false balance, since pandemic lockdown means I have time on my hands. However, if it's just me, it'll go slowly, since 1RR (as I understand it) means I can't remove more than one piece of nonsense per day. My next step will be to remove the 2nd paragraph of Race and intelligence#Brain size and edit the 1st paragraph there so that it gives an NPOV-compliant summary with no details, and of course a link to the full article on the subject. NightHeron (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I edited the lede a bit more. I think the claim that this subject is all about a nature versus nurture debate is so ludicrous as to be almost quaint. Generally, the social science literature has plenty of discussion as to how systemic racism can account for all kinds of "observations" that the racists clamoring here, there, and everywhere on the dark intellectual web seem to think they were the first to stumble upon. It's only the racists who seem to think that systemic racism is "environmental" or "nurture" or whatever. No, systemic racism means the question itself is fraught and so, like, read some critical theory and come to terms with the messiness of human society before deciding what your IQ test histograms means, if anything.

So... in a serious reference work, the first job is to define their terms before positing even the ability to draw conclusions. As it is not possible to define terms in a way that speaks to the psychometrics walled garden, there is no way to pretend that there is a meaningful scientific discussion of this topic in such locations as "Mankind Quarterly", "Intelligence" or "The Bell Curve". Certainly, such clarion calls exist, but treating them as subject material beyond object lessons does the reader no favors. The political controversy and the racist history of this subject is largely what this article, if it is to survive, needs to be about. Quite absent from the article right now is the way these tropes feed into and feed from well-documented racist stereotypes. Until we have discussion of these stereotypes as stereotypes in the article, this article will just be so much empty clanging. At least now we link to social construction. Have at it!

jps (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, This line that you have added to the lead "There is no scientific evidence that differences between average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to more than the subjectivity of the concepts involved." seems mostly original research and is not a conclusion reached in the body of the article. Please rectify this or revert the edit. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
False balance has not yet been removed from the rest of the article, which is why there's a discrepancy right now between the lead and the main body. Once false balance is removed from the other sections, this problem will go away. It takes some time to improve a long article that has false balance woven through it. Please be patient. NightHeron (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The quoted statement in the lede is incoherent and cannot be made coherent by any future edits to the article, or even future scientific developments. You can regard IQ as bogus, race as a fictitious pseudo-concept, systemic racism as everywhere, and take the entirety of critical race theory as gospel, but none of that would allow for attributing measured group differences to "subjectivity". If IQ is merely a measure of cromulence it's still a measurable thing when averaged in large samples, and the causes of group differences on that measure is a pursuable, answerable scientific question not burdened by vagueness or subjectivity. The degree to which that question is interesting, useful, loaded, pernicious or whatever are matters where the non-science subjects can and do come into play but that's a different story from what was pushed into the lede. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand the sentence. Fortunately, competence is required, IP. jps (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
There isn't anything to understand. "Attributed to ... the subjectivity of the concepts involved" is a word salad, sound and fury signifying nothing. If you had some specific assignable idea in mind that can be explained to people unable to read your mind, please feel free to expand on what relevant concrete meaning an "attribution to subjectivity" could possibly point to. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
I know it's hard. Try asking your local sociologist. jps (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
ජපස, Please focus on content and not on getting petty insult jabs in. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Please focus on what content we need and not your fandom of the insipid journal Intelligence. KTHANXBY. jps (talk
It's certainly not original research, and it certainly summarizes all of the most reliable sources I've read on the topic. I tend to agree with NightHeron that the current version of the article is a problem because it focuses problematically on those sources that certain POVs think are relevant without centering on the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of the subject. One option would be to stubbify. jps (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [moved per WP:INDENT, see page history for explanation -- IP 73.xxx]
Please stop being uncivil. On topic: The issue here is that you have come to a supposition, then are just writing it in the lead without regard for A: what the sources say, or B: what the rest of the article that the lead is supposed to summarise actually says. Where is your source for this? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to parse this comment multiple times but have come up short. The sources are pretty clear that race is not defined as Charles Murray believes it is, for example. This is a plain fact for which there are dozens if not hundreds of sources. It is certainly not a supposition. jps (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits to history section

In addition to editing for better grammar/style/clarity, I made the following changes: (1) I changed the section title to History of the controversy since controversy is the term used in the full article on the subject, while the word debate in the earlier title suggested a false balance. (2) I somewhat shortened the paragraph about The Bell Curve, removing false balance and unclarity. NightHeron (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Brain size removals

@NightHeron Why did you remove that paragraph from the Brain Size section? Is there some specific reason? You didn't say why in your edit summary. The info there seemed quite well balanced, even by the relatively aggressive FALSEBALANCE stance you have taken. The sources also seem solid. This edit kinda baffles me. Please explain. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 11:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere: I explained that removal in the talk page, and pointed to the talk page in the edit summary. Please see the previous section. NightHeron (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I support the Brain size removal. The removed paragraph goes into detail about Hunt's views on head size measurements, while relegating the opposing view to a single sentence at the end. This gives undue weight to Hunt who we must "take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted" per community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Dlthewave, I don't see how this enters into the fringe argument. The data is presented (two sentences) and then thoroughly rebuffed (two sentences). This doesn't support a hereditary view in any case. The removal only does the reader a disservice by removing information. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
What information? The marginalized ravings of a has-been and now-deceased psychometric magician? We don't need this kind of nonsense here. jps (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
ජපස, RSN has stated that hunt's book is a reliable source. I've asked you to be civil several times now; please don't switch over to making BLP violations instead. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Lol. It's pretty rich to accuse someone of making "BLP" violations when the subject is dead. Socrates is mortal. Carry on. jps (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The comment above by User:Dlthewave quotes directly what the RSN decided about Hunt, and it wasn't what User:Insertcleverphrasehere claims. Hunt's book might be reliable for certain purposes or topics, but not when it pushes fringe views. Insertcleverphrase says the deleted paragraph was okay because it had two sentences supporting the fringe theory and then two sentences against it. That's what we call WP:FALSEBALANCE. NightHeron (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, It didn't have any sentences "supporting the fringe theory". The first two sentences presented data, then Hunt himself points out that the difference isn't sufficient to explain all but a small portion of the gap. How is this supporting a fringe theory? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere: Are you serious?? The second sentence of that paragraph said: According to Hunt, race differences in average brain size could potentially be an important argument for a possible genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps.
In addition, your earlier formulation (2 sentences one way, then 2 sentences the other way) is wrong. Sentence #3 also supports genetic differences along racial lines, but says that it's much less than Rushton claims. (Hunt's viewpoint has consistently been, to put it crudely, that probably blacks are dumber than whites, but not by nearly as much as Jensen and Rushton say - a viewpoint some might call moderate white-supremacism.) Even the 4th sentence doesn't refute the fringe view, since its meaning is unclear: ...argue that black-white differences in brain size are insufficient to explain 91% to 95% of the black-white IQ gap. Does that mean that brain size differences do explain 5% to 9% of it, which is a fringe view? Or does it mean something else? Beats me. I think the only reasonable solution was to remove the whole poorly-written fringe-supporting paragraph. NightHeron (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
And just as a shout from the bleachers, the average brain size of the human female is less than that of the average male. So are we to accept as reliable 19th and early 20th C texts that say that women are therefore intellectually inferior to men?
And while I've got your attention, there is a high correlation between childhood malnutrition v. size (including brain) and general fitness for life (including intelligence). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maxarchive silently reduced to 200K

The recent edit by Steele1943 reduced Maxarchive for this talk page from 500K to 200K. The larger value seems better for a high-volume page where recent sections often refer to each other. Posting here for comment and will restore the old setting if there are no objections. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not specifically objecting to what you propose, but just commenting that perhaps Steele1943 reduced the max size because, with the fringe debate now concluded and with IP-2600 banned from this talk page (which also means removing the need for me and others to respond at length to IP-2600's lengthy posts), this talk page should not have to be such high volume. If that was Steele1943's rationale, I share that hope. In other words, no more need for walls of text. NightHeron (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:TALKCOND, 75K is the default, and more than five times the default is excessive. Allowing the page to reach 500K increases unnecessary issues on older computers or cheaper mobile devices, as well. Even newer ones will have issues if multiple tabs are open. In many cases it is easier to load a separate archived page (that would be less than half the size) then to locate another comment on the same bloated page. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I welcome the editors of this article to agree on an archive size and am neutral on that topic. However, I will note Grayfell that 75k at WP:TALKCOND refers to a rule of thumb for talk pages such as this. The archivesize under discussion refers to how large a talk page archive should be which is not covered by that rule of thumb. So community archive pages are even larger than 500k (e.g. ANI is currently 800k per archived talk page). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Good point, thank you. Per Help:Archiving a talk page, 75k is also the default maxarchivesize, but as you say this is not a requirement. Per that help page, "each individual archive should not be larger than 512kB" and I don't really see a benefit to getting as close to that as we can. I don't think that because the topic is contentious, the talk pages must receive special treatment, which is, I think, what's being implied. If we are comparing to other pages, if 200k is good enough for Talk:Donald Trump, I think it's probably sufficient for this one, as well. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits of the "Flynn effect" subsection

In addition to minor style/clarity/citation edits, I shortened the subsection by removing (1) a summary of claims by Jan Te Nijenhuis (who has published in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly, see [5],[6]) and a coauthor; (2) a summary of claims in a 2006 article by Charles Murray (political scientist) published in Intelligence; (3) two more citations to Hunt, and (4) the last paragraph, which is based on two articles by Heiner Rindermann et al. The last two sentences of the last paragraph included a long string of unclear and highly controversial notions (such as the degradation of African-American family structure, the rise of fraud in the educational system..."environmental conditions shaped by [African-Americans] themselves"), whose relevance was not explained. NightHeron (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflict with Heritablity of IQ article in the Group Differences section

In the Group Differences section, it is claimed that "The scientific consensus is that group differences in IQ scores are caused not by genetic differences between races or ethnicities, but rather by 'other correlated demographic variables such as socioeconomic status, education level, and motivation.'". However, the article on Heritability of IQ states that "Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80% and 86%." So, is there really a strong consensus of group differences in IQ being caused by non-genetic variables? How is that possible if twin studies show that IQ is 57%-73% heritable? I suggest we delete that sentence.Drbogatyr (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is currently in the middle of being overhauled, but: there is no contradiction between the statement about the heritability of IQ at the level of individuals and differences between IQ at the level of groups. --JBL (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
How is that? One would assume that individual differences would compound when looking at groups. If you have a group of individuals with a trait that is 57%-73% heritable, then we can safely say that the group's trait is 57%-73% heritable overall. Drbogatyr (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, this article does not need OR from SPAs. --JBL (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
You can't just randomly call people SPAs who don't have that tag. I have made contributions to a decent variety of political/social science articles. And you never answered my question.Drbogatyr (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
This article does not need your OR. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It's called making sure wikipedia is consistent across different articles. That sentence obviously contradicts RS that were cited in Heritability of IQ. Drbogatyr (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that you do not understand Wikipedia policies very well, but this is not the place to correct that. --JBL (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
ETA: Oh, I see. No, thanks for your offer, we don't need another SPA here. --JBL (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

My edits reverted and fringe content restored by [User:Maximumideas]

Most of the reverts were basically restoring false balance and undue attention to Hunt. Other effects were to restore repetitive and poorly written content. For example, in the case of the first edit that was reverted, [User:Maximumideas] claims that the two sentences I removed had been accurately sourced to the APA report. The first of the sentences was removed because it repeated (but in a less clear or precise way) the content of the previous sentence. I removed the second sentence because it's a garbled and confusing summary of one minor point made in the source. The sentence is: Rather it may be the case that differences in intelligence, particularly parental intelligence, may also cause differences in SES, making separating the two factors difficult. Instead of trying to rewrite it in a clear manner, I thought the point being made (which was stated in the source in a very tentative way) was not worth including, although if someone wants to examine the source and rewrite the sentence is a readable way, I'd have no objection to including it. In any case, those two sentences are only a small part of the poor-quality and fringe content that [User:Maximumideas] restored.

The massive reverts by [User:Maximumideas], who had argued strenuously against the RfC at WP:FTN and WP:AN, show a refusal to accept consensus and violate WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference to the 30-million word-gap study

Just a small point: at the end of the socioeconomic environment paragraph, there is a reference to Hart and Risley's study claiming that there is a huge disparity in the amount of language children hear in welfare, working-class, and professional families (between 13 million and 45 million words). It should be mentioned somewhere that this 1995 study recently failed to replicate twice (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13072 and https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0169). Antovigo (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Antovigo: Thank you for the links. Your first source does say that their Results do not support Hart and Risley's claim, and goes on to suggest that this might be because Hart and Risley looked only at parents rather than multiple caregivers and bystander talk. Your second source does not refute Hart and Risley. In fact, its "results generally corroborate" Hart-Risley, and the source goes on to suggest reasons why different studies might differ (such as Hart-Risley's comparing more extreme SES groups). It says These results generally corroborate the Hart and Risley (1995) findings, demonstrating quantitative differences among SES groups on some language behaviors measured over the course of the day. Children whose mothers graduated from college were exposed to 3,000 or so more words per day, translating into a four-million-word gap by 4 years of age between the highest and lowest SES groups in our sample. Although this average overall number is considerably smaller than the 30-million-word gap reported by Hart and Risley, it is important to note that their methodology differed from that of the current work in a number of ways. The estimate of Hart and Risley was based on 1-hr recordings extrapolated out to a 14-hr day. Given that they typically recorded during the early evening hours, which is a time of relatively high talk and interaction (Greenwood, Thiemann-Bourque, Walker, Buzhardt, & Gilkerson, 2011), their extrapolations likely resulted in inflated daily estimates. They also compared more extreme groups than here, as their lowest SES group was on public assistance, and their highest SES group consisted largely of academic professionals. However, we do note that for the AWC distribution reported for our sample (ignoring SES), the average daily 14-hr count difference between parents above the 98th percentile versus those below the 2nd percentile is approximately 20,500 words. Multiplied over 4 years, that daily difference equates to a word gap of 29.95 million words. That is, the 30-million-word gap observed decades ago by Hart and Risley does indeed apply here, albeit only when comparing the top versus bottom 2% of families. NightHeron (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not claiming Hart and Risley's study has been refuted, only that their results, as they are presented on this page, have not been replicated. There is almost one order of magnitude of difference between the original and the replication. Of course, you might be able to recover the 30M gap by comparing the top and bottom 2% of families, but that's not what the original claimed, and - most importantly - that is not what is claimed in this page's text. Is the 2%/2% comparison even relevant to the topic of racial differences? I don't think the 1995 study alone qualifies as a reliable source, unless the replication efforts are properly cited. Antovigo (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
A comparison between the long tails at either end of the bell curve is completely meaningless. Edge conditions are notoriously erratic. Statistical significance is usually set at 95%, making this at deliberate pseudo-science (seeking confirmation rather than disproval). It doesn't qualify as a reliable source period and it would be blatant false balance to include it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've omitted that sentence and citation. NightHeron (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits to "Spearman's hypothesis" subsection

In addition to minor copy-editing, I removed (1) a sentence based on the same fringe source by Te Nihenjuis and van der Flier as before (see my edit of the "Flynn effect"' subsection), and (2) the last paragraph, which was based on Hunt (although the latter part had a "citation needed" tag) and largely repeated some of what was already explained more clearly in preceding paragraphs. I also rewrote part of the previous paragraph about Flynn's critique so as to remove some unclarity (now citing only the 2010 paper by Flynn). NightHeron (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits to last section

I shortened the first paragraph, which lists people who have written on the subject but without saying what they've written. I removed the sentence giving the opinion of Linda Gottfredson, a fringe author who has received funding from the white-supremacist Pioneer Fund, which at the very least raises the issue of conflict of interest and also raises doubt that she's a reliable source for the topic of research ethics. I also removed some statements that are trite and have little content, such as "schools can be greatly improved...many interventions at every age level are possible." I removed two "primary source" templates because those sources are being used only to support a statement of what the authors' views are. NightHeron (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert of my attempt to improve problematic "Group differences" section

I started to work on the "Group differences" section by editing the intro paragraph to remove false balance and the undue attention given to Hunt. My edit was immediately reverted by User:Jweiss11. Hunt, who was a moderate advocate of fringe theories of racial inferiority/superiority in intelligence, is over-cited in this article and given undue attention. His presentation of the issue given in this paragraph is a clear example of false balance. My edits to the paragraph follow the consensus reached at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard [7] and at WP:Administrators' noticeboard [8]. Before we continue work on fixing this section, we should resolve the matter of its intro paragraph. Hopefully we can do that quickly, without repeating earlier discussions. NightHeron (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hunt is a mainstream, reliable source, and the passage in question gives a very neutral summary of all the possible causes and interpretations of intelligence variance between groups. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
No, he's not a reliable source for information on race and intelligence, although he is RS for what his own beliefs were. A former president of the International Society for Intelligence Research, an organization that promotes fringe views about race and intelligence, he supported the notion that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines. The false balance in this passage is what you call "very neutral." Please respect consensus and self-revert. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, your summary is inaccurate and suggests an effort advance blank slate denialism. Happy to entertain the opinion of others here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I love NightHeron’s edit but Hunt is not "a mainstream, reliable source” when it comes to the topics at hand. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Jweiss11, on Conservapedia maybe. Not here. Guy (help!) 22:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
No, Guy, the liberal view of a Steven Pinker should probably prevail here on Wikipedia, and Hunt's work seems to align much with Pinker's in its rejection of blank slate dogma. Unfortunately, many efforts in certainly places seem aimed toward turning Wikipedia into "Rational"Wiki or worse. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
the liberal view of a Steven Pinker christ the quality of discourse here is really down the tubes, isn't it? --JBL (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis Can you explain your issue with my comment? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I started to write a list of problems with it and it got too long to be worth posting; here is an attempt at a short summary. It fails to relate in any identifiable way to Wikipedia's norms and policies. Also, the argument it presents seems entirely absurd, consisting of vague, dubious connections between unrelated things (Wikipedia, Pinker, liberalism, Hunt, etc.). --JBL (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
One addition to JBL's list: Jweiss11 seems clueless about the meaning of blank slate denialism and blank slate dogma. It does not mean rejection of the racialist notion that black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence.
Rather, it is the theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content (from the Wikipedia page on the subject), that is, without "human nature" or genetic differences in capabilities between individuals. That theory has no relevance to this article. Before Jweiss11 accuses other editors of something, he should at least check into what the term means. NightHeron (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
JBL, but yet, you had seem to have no problem with JzG/Guy's characterization of "Conservapedia". My Pinker comment was a direct and analogous retort to that. Does "christ the quality of discourse here is really down the tubes, isn't it?" relate in any identifiable way to Wikipedia's norms and policies? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so when you said the liberal view of a Steven Pinker should probably prevail here on Wikipedia, this didn't actually constitute a suggestion on how to edit the article, it was just inane rambling for some other purpose? --JBL (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, I understand the blank slate myth and its rebuttal quite well. The point is that genes build the human brain, just like they build every other structure of life on this planet. That means that genetics are in large part a driver of human cognitive function. And we know that there is genetic variance between ethnic groups of human. It would be a miracle if cognitive function was except from any of that variance. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
You ought to bone up on logic. Steven Pinker and most other opponents of blank slate dogma do not say that black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence. If you believe that, you should switch to editing Conservapedia, as JzG suggested. On Wikipedia that's regarded as a fringe viewpoint, and so the work of Jensen/Rushton/Gottfredson/Piffer/Hunt/Rindermann etc on the subject of race and intelligence must be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
JBL, let's review. I started with a defense of the Hunt passage that NH removed, asserting that it belonged in the article. JzG/Guy, said no, it doesn't it, it belongs on Conservapedia. I replied by saying, no, it not the sort of conservative nonsense that belongs on Conservapedia. It's actually in line with arguments offered by a respected and reliable psychologist, Pinker, who happens to be a liberal, not a conservative. So, yes, my whole argument is in service how I think the article should be edited. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Night Heron, my logic is fine here. No one is saying is "black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence". I do, however, believe that the mean and distribution of genetic drivers for intelligence is not identical for each every and ethnic group of humans. Basic logic demands me to believe that. Your suggestion that I "should switch to editing Conservapedia" strikes me as a hostile attack. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
"No one is saying..." Are you serious?? That's exactly what Jensen,Rushton,... are saying. NightHeron (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm serious. You are caricaturing the view of everyone who quite rationally views racial/ethnic group differences in mean intelligence as having a genetic contribution greater than zero, and cherry-picking the most politically charged comparison out of many. Shall we discuss views on drivers of mean difference in intelligence in whites vs. East Asians or Ashkenazi Jews? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Everything we need to know is encapulated by your I do, however, believe that the mean and distribution of genetic drivers for intelligence is not identical. You believe. That is not science. Arguing from the particular to general is not science. Classifying a very broad spectrum of 'all whites' on one hand v a narrow spectrum on the other is first year high school F- see me after class. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman, my opponents in this debate here are clearly pushing the narrative that genetics has nothing do with any difference in mean intelligence between racial groups, which is also a belief. Except the probability of my belief being true is near 1, whereas the probability of theirs is near 0. Yet no beratement from you on that belief. Strange. On the broad band vs. very broad spectrum of 'all whites', not sure I see the "first year high school F-' problem with that. There's evidence that Ashkenazi Jews score higher on IQ tests than whites at large; see Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence#Evidence for a group difference in intelligence. As long as the sample sizes are significant enough, there's no problem in principal with that comparison. Alternatively, you could compare each and every ethnic group that make up white people against one another, but even there some ethnic groups are much larger than others. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The null hypothesis is not a belief. The null hypothesis is that the weather today in New York has nothing to do with the date the Civil War ended. That's one of an enormous set of null hypotheses not worth debating. The onus is on the people who think they understand genes and intelligence to make a claim about any connection. It is even more rich to claim that your rejection of this particular null hypothesis is almost certainly true. If this is not WP:POVPUSHing, I don't know what is. It's too bad you weren't topic banned. jps (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
jps: your trying to hijack the "null-hypothesis" to push your own POV. The null hypothesis would we have no idea where why we see mean IQ differences between groups in testing. It could be caused by any numbers or things in any number of weights. But asserting that the genetic component is definitely zero or definitely non-zero are each moves away from a null-hypothesis. You're comment "It's too bad you weren't topic banned" strikes me as a hostile attack. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
You clearly don't know what the null hypothesis is. And my comment is a hostile attack. You appear to be a severe net-negative on this page and it is unfortunate that the admins at AE didn't see that. I see you adding nothing of value here except your own ignorance and I've had enough of that. jps (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Community consensus is ". . . we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted." A fringe source (yes, we do treat it as fringe, and do not give it undue weight) shouldn't be used to summarize the section, and Nightheron's removal/rewrite gives more appropriate weight to the mainstream view. It's an improvement to clearly state the currently-accepted viewpoint up front instead of presenting Hunt's four "positions" as if they are on equal footing. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It's an improvement to clearly state the currently-accepted viewpoint up front instead of presenting Hunt's four "positions" as if they are on equal footing. Yes, absolutely. --JBL (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
      • +1. This was settled already: we don't present Hunt's 4 positions as if they're four equally-accepted positions, nor is Hunt's 4-position-theory to be presented as mainstream or widely accepted. I agree NH's edits were an improvement and should be reinstated. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Two more edits

I've made a fairly minor edit to the lead that I hope clarifies jps's last sentence and combines his version with mine in a straightforward way. I also deleted the second paragraph of Race and intelligence#Brain size which gives credibility to fringe theories on race, brain size, and intelligence. The few readers who are especially interested in brain size will find a link provided to a full article on the subject.

The admins who closed the DRV that overturned the close of the 4th AfD for this article told us we should fix non-neutral or fringe content by editing. Shouldn't we first try to do that? And then, if that doesn't work, I suppose we could try for a 5th AfD. NightHeron (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "Concepts such as "race" and "intelligence" are social constructs that defy objective definition" in the lead is really silly and inappropriate. It totally fails Wikipedia:NOTESSAY and NPOV. I mean if "race" and "intelligence" defy objective definition, so does "social construct". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it could be worded better but what other way is there to describe the fiction that is race? Homo Sapiens is a single species, from the Inuit to the Maori via any route you care to take. People with mainly European ancestry have more than average Neanderthal DNA, those with north-east Asian ancestry have more than average Denisovan. Most people in most of the world have a little bit of everything. 'Race' is an artefact created by Europeans who, having failed to observe the smooth transition of climate-adapted surface anatomy seen in the rest of the world (due to the Sahara), leapt to a conclusion that has blighted understanding ever since. Race is not real. Racism is very real.
Intelligence is certainly real: the problem arises when it comes to measurement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Race is not real" may be better proposed as "race is a social fact, not a biological one". I am not sure there is convincing evidence that intelligence is more than a social fact either. There is certainly no strong definition for intelligence that I have seen which I suppose is close to your point that measurement is a problem, but if things cannot be measured beyond the subjective claims of those who declare them to exist, it is difficult for anyone to say whether or not they are "real". jps (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, So your stance is that human intelligence isn't real? That's an untenable position that simply doesn't stand against a century of intelligence research. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
My stance is that "intelligence" is ill-defined and that the century of intelligence research is unimpressive... much of it no better than phrenology (which ought to be linked at this page along with eugenics). jps (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a slew of common armchair objections to the century of intelligence research, most of which which are regarded as long-debunked FRINGE and IDONTLIKEIT by researchers. Hence Turkheimer's proposal of a "psychometric left" that opposes hereditarianism without resorting to discredited canards that race doesn't exist, twin studies don't work, intelligence isn't probed by IQ tests, etc etc. I think the experts have all heard the sociological deconstructions of race before, and can name the main lines of failed attempts at alternative definitions of intelligence. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
"Social fact" is an ill-defined term, even more so than race or intelligence, and possibly a pseudoconcept.
Race as your great-grandparents understood it is a stylized fact, the accuracy (i.e, concordance between self report, other-report, and genetic ancestry) being so high that the word "stylized" might not be necessary. The article could use an FAQ section with disclaimers, definitions and a rundown of common false objections, "race doesn't exist / is arbitrary" being one of the main ones. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Still have serious POV issue with the lead

"Concepts such as "race" and "intelligence" are social constructs that defy objective definition". Who says "race" and "intelligence" defy objective definition, yet the concept of a "social construct" doesn't. This reads like Nigh Heron's personal essay. Violates NPOV. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me credit as an essayist, but in all honesty I must say that I don't deserve it, since the term social construct was put in the lead by another editor [9]. Note that, while both terms race and intelligence are used all the time in popular discourse, Section 2 of the article explains that neither term has a scientific definition that's supported by mainstream scientists. In that sense they're social constructs rather than precise scientific notions. NightHeron (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Jweiss11, sure, you have POV issues. The article, to my reading, doesn't. Guy (help!) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
NH, sorry, I missed who added the phrase. I assumed is was yours given your heavy changes to the article of late. To the point, why is "social construct" given some sort authoritative certification that it can modify that "race" and "intelligence" on the question on objectivity? Note that social constructionism is an epistemological theory that has drawn criticism from many mainstream scientists, including Steven Pinker, who has asserted is constitutes one of our favorite concepts here, blank slate denalism. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is "social construct" given some sort of authoritative certification that it can modify "race" and "intelligence" on the question on objectivity? Because that's the term prevalent among RSes. You can go to Google scholar and search for "race", "intelligence" and "social construct" and see for yourself. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, here are Google scholar results: 3,070,000 hits for "race", 3,790,000 for "intelligence" and 99,800 for "social construct". Are there particular RSes you'd like to draw attention to? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Search for all three at the same time, with quotes around it: "race" "intelligence" "social construct". One of the first results is Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley's paper "Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race, which per Google has been cited over 1,000 times. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, you found one paper that asserts that race is a social construct. Not sure it says the same about intelligence. And a paper that doesn't assert or assume that these concepts are merely "social constructs" might not use the term "social construct", thus your search terms are geared to find exactly what you're looking for, not the whole picture. Nonetheless, surely there are many others papers that agree with Smedley and Smedley. But there are many other papers that treat race, ethnicity, and intelligence (independently for sure) as targets for objective study, as well as many other papers that cast doubt on social constructionism as a reliable epistemology. Also, the body of this article never suggests that intelligence is a social construct, yet the the lead does. That's certainly a problem. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
You asked for an example, I gave you an example, and then you say "you found one paper" as if that's the only source. I just described the search string that brings up many more sources, so you know that's not the only one. Please don't waste my time; if you ask me for an example, I assume you're asking in good faith, not to play rhetorical games. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Levicich, please re-read my last comment again. Here's the relevant part: "Nonetheless, surely there are many others papers that agree with Smedley and Smedley. But there are many other papers that treat race, ethnicity, and intelligence (independently for sure) as targets for objective study, as well as many other papers that cast doubt on social constructionism as a reliable epistemology. Also, the body of this article never suggests that intelligence is a social construct, yet the the lead does. That's certainly a problem." Jweiss11 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
For example, this source suggests that intelligence is not merely a "social construct" but target for a scientific investigation at a neurological level: The Neuroscience of Intelligence by Richard J. Haier. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Jweiss11, Ah yes, author of Mainstream Science on Intelligence. So, fringe. Guy (help!) 21:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
JzG, so anything written by any signatory of "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" is considered to be fringe while anything written by any other academic is presumed to be reliable, given no other disqualification? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Jweiss11, false dichotomy. Anything written by signatories of fringe documents is likely to be fringe. Anything written by non-signatories might or might not be, depending on what it actually is. All we can say with confidence is that "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" is anything but. Guy (help!) 22:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Your assessment about what is fringe here and how it applies to various academics strikes me as transparent POV push on your part. Combined with your flippant comment about Steven Pinker earlier, this is rather disconcerting. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Jweiss11, That Pinker considers the article bad, is praise indeed. Only an attack by Alex Jones could be better. Guy (help!) 21:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Is that last comment supposed to be constructive? I don't see how maligning a well-respected and reliable psychologist with a comparison to Alex Jones helps this discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It's constructive enough. Pinker is less-than-reliable when it comes to critiques of the social sciences. It's rather like Thomas Nagel in the context of the creation-evolution debate. jps (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That's your personal opinion of Pinker. In the meantime, Pinker's work is considered RS on Wikipedia. Interestingly, Steven Pinker denounced Nagel's relevant work, Mind and Cosmos. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep. The irony is not lost on me. It's why I mentioned Nagel. Meantime, we don't need to take him seriously when he appears on the "intellectual" dark web. jps (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
So, because Pinker makes an appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast or is mentioned in a NY Times article about the "intellectual dark web" by Bari Weiss, that negates his reliability? Strikes me as some rather tortured WP:DONTLIKEIT there. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

His relegation to interaction in those venues is just indicative of his unreliability in these matters. jps (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone wrote an article that mentions Pinker and Pinker went on one of the most popular podcasts in the world whose guests have included all sorts of people including experts many fields. Neither of these things has any bearing on the reliability of Pinker's publisher work, particularly work published more than decade before such interactions, are or nefarious "intellectual dark web" associations capable of time travel? This is as transparent as WP:DONTLIKEIT can get. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You've ran away from the initial point. Pinker's fawning over the intellectual dark web approach to these subjects means that his dislike for a particular paper is indicative that the paper has pushed the right buttons. jps (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point. The relevant studies are historically important, but are obsolete, flawed, and based on too many simplistic assumptions. "Population groups" is too vague in this context. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur with Jweiss11 that the following lacks POV: Concepts such as "race" and "intelligence" are social constructs that defy objective definition. These words are used constantly by major world governments, academic institutions, businesses, and so on, in an objective sense. The other wiki pages related to these words (race, and separately, intelligence) both discuss these in objective classification terms. The different treatment of the terms on this page constitutes a narrow POV. Since multiple editors have this concern, I am adding the flag back for now while this is hashed out here. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure which wiki pages you're referring to, but our Race (human categorization) article describes "race" as "increasingly seen as a largely pseudoscientific system of classification" and "not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context". –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Would like to point out that in n the talk section above entitled "Rewrite", Ekpyros yesterday corroborated the main thrust of my objections to this article's lead. Ekpyros, you way want to briefly reiterate your argument here. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted the disputed sentence per the comments just above from 6 and 7 May. Crossroads -talk- 04:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing out-of-place quote from "Group differences" section

I removed the quote from Hampshire et al for two reasons. First, the quoted sentence that I removed occurs right after a sentence about the claims of Ruston and Jensen about race and intelligence and from the context expresses disagreement with those claims. But out of context the meaning of the quoted sentence is unclear. Second, it's misleading to refer to Hampshire et al as a study that relates to group differences. The article itself states that "An in-depth discussion of the relationship between biological or demographic variables and components of intelligence is outside the scope of the current article." Rather, the study concerns whether there is a unitary intelligence factor "g" or multiple factors that produce very different results. The quoted sentence is immediately followed in the article by: "More relevantly, it is questionable whether they relate to a unitary intelligence factor, as opposed to a bias in testing paradigms toward particular components of a more complex intelligence construct." NightHeron (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note the Wiki editing rules on this talk page, which state: Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. The source you added is not one of those. I would ask that perhaps you instead supplement the existing quote with the necessary context from the Hampshire study in Neuron. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
And while it's true that the Hampshire paper itself does not itself investigate the "the relationship between biological or demographic variables", it is a top level source, and its statements about broad features of the scholarship surrounding that question are RS. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I concur with MaximumIdeas on this last point. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I replaced the Vox source by a different source, and reworded the sentence about the Hampshire et al source so as to emphasize the main point of the study as it relates to race and intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

Does anyone besides me think this article needs to be WP:TNTed rewritten, and we should discuss what a new TOC would look like? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, at this point I would seriously consider supporting the article's deletion. (I voted "keep" in the previous AFD.) Not because the topic isn't notable, but because lately I've been losing hope that the Wikipedia community is capable of upholding WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR on this article. If you think the article should be deleted, you're welcome to re-nominate it for deletion. 2600:1004:B156:2805:69A8:D59E:7D3B:254A (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
IIRC you mentioned some stable or superior earlier versions of the article before the recent wikilawyering. Can you post a link to the best version(s) you would recommend for linking or archiving? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Let's not put the cart before the horse. No one has even nominated the article for deletion yet. If it eventually looks probable that the article will be deleted, then we can discuss which old versions are worth archiving. 2600:1004:B14B:6615:2C17:4D80:8F18:30F4 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The information would be useful independent of any deletions. It's possible to randomly browse past versions but there are thousands and you seem to actually have done the legwork of finding good ones, so I'd be interested to take a look. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, linking to the WP:TNT essay was ambiguous; I meant a rewrite, not a deletion. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not support an attempt to rewrite the whole article at once. Similar things have been tried before, and the only result was to create massive amounts of drama. However, if the article were deleted, I suppose it could eventually be rewritten at a later point. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be awfully keen on deleting it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I do see the issue with the article, and it's apparent in the first sentences. Why so much nonsense about "social constructs" and why is there anything at all about genetics in the lead? Other subjects such as Race and sports, Racial discrimination, Animal intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence have no need for such disclaimers about the validity of either "race" or "intelligence" (or that "sports" or discrimination" are "social constructs")—and for good reason. This is an article about the intersection of "race and intelligence"—and it should be obvious to a child that the issue here isn't whether race or intelligence are real but about the differences in average measured intelligence between races. So the beginning of the article must inform readers that there are well-established differences, as well as what they are—if truly germane, any questioning of the "validity" of the terms can be taken up elsewhere or later in the article. Likewise, whether those differences have a genetic cause and to what degree is obviously secondary, and ought to be in another section (or even another article). But no dispassionate and thoughtful person would ever sit down and write an article on "Race and intelligence" in this kind of convoluted, deliberately obfuscatory way—so I agree that at the very least the lead ought to be rewritten the way any 6th-grader would a term paper, by elucidating the basic facts up front. That the facts are uncomfortable, have been used to justify unfortunate policies, etc. are all worth covering separately in the article by means of a new TOC. Elle Kpyros (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
As Race (human categorization) says, "race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning." Funny how often "the facts are uncomfortable" gets used as justification for ignoring other relevant facts, like that one. Reliable sources do not agree that these categories and metrics are valid starting points, and so neither will the article. Insinuating that people who try to include information you personally don't think is relevant are therefore not "dispassionate and thoughtful" is silly and ironic. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You're completely missing my point. I'm not denying that there are issues with the concept of "race"—and I am glad they're addressed on the appropriate Race (human categorization) page. It may not have an "inherent physical or biological" meaning—but it does have meaning, and in the case of Race and intelligence it means the commonly accepted groups we work with all the time as we describe people as "white", "Asian", or "black". As I pointed out, no one sees the need to discuss this in the introduction to Race and sports or Racial discrimination—are you suggesting that every mention of the word "race" in Wikipedia include an explanation that the term may not have "inherent physical meaning"? Assuming not, what is the special or unusual circumstance that necessitates including it in this article? Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you already know the special circumstances. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide context. This particular topic is full-to-bursting with fringe pseudoscience, and it would be negligent to ignore that history. Treating all uses of a term exactly the same, regardless of context, defeats the purpose of having an encyclopedia. Few people use racial categories "all the time", and when academics and scientists use these categories, it's almost always in a specific context. Categories need to be carefully defined before they are studied, not after, otherwise this is pseudoscience. For decades the consensus has been that "race" is not well-defined as it applies to "intelligence" (which is also controversial). Therefore, it is important to make sure this is explained early and clearly, not as an afterthought. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Do the objections to race and to IQ-as-metric do any work in the article outside the lede? As you say, some of this clearly relates to "history", for which there is a sister article on history of the race and intelligence controversy. But what difference has it ever made, and what difference could it ever make to the post-1969 empirical debate about causes of psychometric IQ differences between self-reported "black" and "white" groups? It's pretty hard to imagine what line of evidence for or against hereditarianism could be in any way affected by complaints that race is unreal or IQ doesn't measure intelligence. These are meta-scientific criticisms about what investigations are worth pursuing, are socially pernicious, or whatever. If they aren't part of the actual scientific dispute, they should either be omitted or it made clear that they are extraneous to the core of the controversy. Presenting the extraneous arguments as though they address or vitiate the question about genetics is misleading. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge the content-fork, and re-focus on what the sources are telling us instead of editorial activism

I think it would be most productive to merge History of the race and intelligence controversy to this shorter article title, and use that as bulk of the combined article. Most of this article is really the tail-end of that history, and the pages being separate is basically a WP:POVFORK, in which this article gets pushed and skewed because particular editors want to focus on "proving" or "disproving" a link between so-called intelligence and so-called race. But that's not our job. The history article is not subject to this kind of bullshit (at least not much), because its goal is to lay out what the sources tell us about this issue and its background, instead of misusing WP as place to try to bend sources to push a personal viewpoint.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This might be an okay way forward, but I would prefer to wholesale copy the content from History of the race and intelligence controversy over here rather than attempt any mergefrom. There really is nothing worth keeping here that isn't better addressed over there, I would argue. jps (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
WP doesn't work that way. When dealing with major chunks of content, there has to be a clearly recorded merge "trail" in the edit history, or even a history merge, because edit-history attribution has to be preserved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, I agree. There is, in the end, only one subject, and most of the drama has been down to us failing to tackle that fact. The two articles function as WP:POVFORKs of each other at this point. Guy (help!) 10:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll ignore McCandlish's strong POV (using foul language to refer to the removal of false balance), and just comment that both Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy are long articles with a lot of well-sourced material and not much overlap, and that seems to argue against merging. Although personally I find the early history of this controversy (the main content of the second article) to be very interesting, clearly most Wikipedia readers don't agree with me. The average pageview count for the second article stands at 163, while for Race and intelligence it's 1143. NightHeron (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course the other article has a lower view-count, since it's at a non-obvious name. PS: Not everything is about you. The bullshit I refer to is months of totally unproductive bi-directional PoV pushing. This is not "your" article, so please stop taking every criticism about this article as if it's a criticism of you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Phew! I'm relieved that your words editorial activism in the title of this thread were not referring to my recent edits. NightHeron (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't exclude them. I'll repeat that my concerns are about two entrenched camps treating this page as a battleground.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


  • I oppose this RtM. These are two long articles, each sufficient to stand on its own. Unless the desire is to reintegrate mistaken historical views into the modern appreciation of the topic, I fail to see the point. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose a merge, for the reasons I gave above. NightHeron (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but more discussion is needed. The bit about "editorial activism" is far too simplistic and unpersuasive, especially for a fringe topic, and this only makes discussion more difficult. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the merge. There's probably too much content for one article. This article ought to be mostly about the stuff that isn't the controversy, although a number editors appear to have the opinion that this subject is nothing but controversy surrounding racist pseudoscience. I proposed a name change to this article earlier this year and I'll throw it out again: "Race, ethnicity, and intelligence". That name change might facilitate a better handling of the studies on the subject and better dovetail with related articles like Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Orangejuicedude indef blocked as a probable sock. I know, I'm shocked too. Guy (help!) 11:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support The theories in the history article are important to a modern understanding of the subject. The other article reads like a fork and the jump to a different article reduces the reader's ability to fully understand the background as it relates to modern definitions. If the history article needs to be kept for readability purposes (merging would be super long), then both articles need to compliment each other. I'm not feeling like they currently do, leaving us with what is basically two independent competing essays (yikes).
I think we could go as far as making the history article the primary while relegating this to "Modern rebuttals to the race and intelligence controversy". That is obviously a little extreme but anything is better than the mess we have with both these articles.Orangejuicedude (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Orangejuicedude, given that you have only 55 edits and fewer than 10 days meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, I'm not convinced you understand the policy position well enough. Guy (help!) 10:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Your position would be better served to comment on the content of the argument instead of gatekeeping. You should know better as an administrator and admonish yourself.
The Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences section, especially "Heritability within and between groups", gets so much attention that it boarders on undue weight. Additionally, it would better the readers' understanding if they knew more of the background. At this point, the article reads like a series of rebuttals to argument, regardless if they have been debunked, in the other history article.
Maybe you should stop poisoning the well and work on improving the article with a renewed focus on NPOV and not leading the reader. I would argue that this article smacks of original research due to the emphasis given to some studies over others. It reads like wikipedia is trying to make a point einstead of being encyclopedic in tone.Orangejuicedude (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your "content of the argument," please read WP:ESSAYS. The two extensively sourced articles Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy, which come out of years of discussions and edits by many dozen experienced editors, are not "the mess we have" and are not "competing essays (yikes)." If you want to be taken seriously, you should learn a little about editing before expressing extreme opinions.
Please also read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, which explain how to cover topics such as Scientific racism. NightHeron (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Orangejuicedude, let me be more direct. Very inexperienced editors who weigh in on subjects like this, tend to cause drama and not last long. Guy (help!) 22:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Let me be just as blunt: This is not my first rodeo and, yes, this article reads like an essay combating the controversial, and often rightfully discredited, history. The history is not simply disregarded, but actually openly argued against instead of simply acknowledging that science has evolved over time. To be very blunt: It is shit. You should be using novel approaches to including the information without giving it equal weight and should spend more time on that instead of arguing and drama.Orangejuicedude (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Part of what you're seeing is that article is now personal property of one editor who has turned it into a science fiction blog. Banning this or that user is not a solution, since for every edit warrior there are ten to replace them. There need to be some constraints formulated at a higher level on how AfD's, RfC's, and other consensus inquiries are conducted, at least on controversy-ridden pages. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • While I agree with every word from SMcCandlish on censorship, NPOV etc;; the complexity of the already too long article should be reduced, not increased through a merge. Pre-1969 history should be almost entirely a link to history of the race and intelligence controversy. Essentially all of this article is about psychometric differences rather than nebulous "intelligence", so if (as several people have suggested) the article were renamed to "race and IQ", discussion of IQ versus intelligence can also be delegated to other articles. Likewise with validity-of-race and test bias issues that for the most part can be done elsewhere. Prune and focus as much as possible instead of creating a battleground for a dozen side issues. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not just an old history, but a currently active subject/controversy. Is it a scientific or only a political controversy does not really matter. But it does have very long history. Hence having a separate history sub-page was well justified. My very best wishes (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle as a step in the right direction. There have been numerous discussions recently involving fringe and false balance with some valid arguments made, but i see little of those arguments reflected in article content, or when present are buried under the dueling "proving" or "disproving". Where in the article can I find someone such as Saini adding social context, Turkheimer with an overview of the scientific merit? Focusing on back and forth of "current" research of related topics is precisely the false balance complained of, what the fringe guideline and NPOV should tell us not to, and prominent critics warn against. There is "some" validity to IQ testing, "some" validity to inheritability of intelligence, "some" validity to genetics and race and therefore logically there must be some validity to these arguments about race and intelligence. This is not a scientific proposition but the current content plays right into that argument. A "blunt instrument of pseudoscience", and used to advance a "white supremacist agenda" are what those wiser than us are saying, but WP has this weaselly "race is a social construct" and "intelligence has no agreed-upon definition". To those who spent so much time arguing in the FTN discussion i would say roll up your sleeves, get rid of the false balance and tell the reader why it is fringe. Don't try and make the argument yourselves by engaging in debate or trying to label a particular researcher as "racist"; there are plenty of qualified people publishing in reliable sources that can be relied upon. SMcCandlish has one way forward and just because it is "well-referenced" does not mean the article content is appropriate. fiveby(zero) 14:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
One trait of racist pseudoscience is the tendency to ignore the big picture. Therefore, noting that race is a social construct doesn't seem weaselly if our goal is to explain the larger topic. It's accurate and relevant to the rest of the article. Likewise with the definition of intelligence. The correct approach may seem obvious to you, but that if it were that simple, we wouldn't be having these discussions. Dismissing approaches contrary to your own as "dueling" says nothing about the actual content of the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Few errors

In the adoption study sections it's claimed that:

"Three other adoption studies found contrary evidence to the Minnesota study, lending support to environmental explanations of group IQ differences:

Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War II who were then raised by white German mothers in what has become known as the Eyferth study. He found no significant differences in average IQ between groups."

This is not an adoption study.

Also, none of the two other studies follow up participants to adolescence, which is when shared environments effect declines. Minnesota study is the only one that has a follow-up to adolescence, which is worth mentioning.

In the twin study section it's stated that:

"Twin studies of intelligence have reported high heritability values. However, these studies are based on questionable assumptions."

It should be something along the lines of "Some claim that these studies are based on questionable assumptions". They are one of the gold standard tools of behavioural genetics, used in all behavioural genetics textbooks. Because some people have criticised the assumptions doesn't mean they are based on "questionable assumptions".

"When used in the context of human behavior genetics, the term "heritability" is misleading"

Misleading for whom? Not for me. This is a subjective opinion.

"as it does not convey any information about the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors on the development of a given trait, nor does it convey the extent to which that trait is genetically determined."

It should be "as it does not *necessarily* convey information".

To say it does not convey any information is silly. If it's shown that identical twins are more likely to have the same eye-colour than non-identical twins, or that adoptees eye-colour is more likely to be that of their biological rather than adoptive parents, it obviously conveys information about genetic and environmental factors that influence eye-colour. Indeed behavioural genetics uses heritability to estimate how large share of the variation is explained by genetics, even if that is always not perfect. To say something is imperfect way of measuring something, that can lead to error, is not to say that it "does not convey any information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:6104:C0AA:DE3D:FEF4 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your comments on eye color indicate that you have indeed been mislead by the term "heritability". Heredity is not the same as heritability, which is one of the reasons this term is misleading. As the first sentences of the abstract for the relevant cited source explains, The term ‘heritability,’ as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science. Contrary to popular belief, the measurable heritability of a trait does not tell us how ‘genetically inheritable’ that trait is.[10] Grayfell (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
In response to the IP-editor: You're correct about the Eyferth study not being an adoption study, and so I've deleted the word "adoption" from three other adoption studies.
Your claim that the methodology of the Minnesota twin study is more reliable than the methodology of the other three studies is not plausible. The Minnesota study has been widely criticized for bias, which is not surprising in view of its funding sources (the white supremacist Pioneer Fund and the right-wing Koch Foundation, which also funds climate change denialism).
The most obvious questionable assumption of the twin studies (going back to Cyril Burt) is that the adoptive family's socioeconomic status and its cultural environment are independent of those of the birth family.
Eye-color is not a behavioral trait, so it's not relevant to a discussion of genetic vs environmental influences on behavioral traits. One of the reasons why the term heritability is misleading in the context of behavioral traits is that it commonly refers to correlation between children and parents, which can arise from socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental influences as well as genetic ones. It is also misleading to use the same term heritability both in talking about individual variation and in speculating about differences between groups. NightHeron (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, eye colour was not a good example, let's take dyslexia. You are saying that behavioural geneticists think that say, if twin and adoption studies show that dyslexia or schizophrenia is heritable, it "does not convey any information about the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors"? I'm pretty sure that I can find sources that say otherwise if that is really what you claim. If it's not what you claim, that is how it then comes across.
"Your claim that the methodology of the Minnesota twin study is more reliable than the methodology of the other three studies is not plausible."
I'm saying there is a problem with comparing the other studies, as they do not compare IQs of adolescents. The effect of shared environment fades away by adolescence. Also, I'm not talking about Minnesota Twin Study. I'm talking about Minnesota Adoption study.
"The most obvious questionable assumption of the twin studies (going back to Cyril Burt) is that the adoptive family's socioeconomic status and its cultural environment are independent of those of the birth family."
I do not understand what you mean. Robert Plomin looked at the test scores of all twins in England and Wales of certain age group. He compared identical and non-identical twins. What do adoptive families have to do with that? Almost none of the twins were adopted?
2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:6104:C0AA:DE3D:FEF4 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about confusing the two Minnesota studies. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (MTAS) was not funded by the Pioneer Fund. I see that I failed to remove the false balance in this section, which contrasts the MTAS with other studies that support environmental causes of test differences. In fact, there is no contrast; the MTAS was interpreted by mainstream commentators as inconclusive, in part because of design flaws and in part because of the complexity of the issues. Richard Lynn and Michael Levin, both of whom are way outside the mainstream (Levin is classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an "unabashed white supremacist") interpreted the MTAS as showing a genetic cause of racial differences in test scores. I'll remove the wording that suggests that the MTAS gave opposite results to the other three tests.
I also apologize for lumping together studies of identical-vs-nonidentical twins with the studies of identical twins reared together and reared apart. My comment on the obvious problematic assumption relates to the latter (for example, the original studies of Cyril Burt), not the former. I'll also edit that sentence.
Thanks for pointing out erroneous or unclear statements. NightHeron (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Somoeone wrote "When used in the context of human behavior genetics, the term "heritability" is misleading, as it does not convey any information about the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors on the development of a given trait"
This is not true. Behavioural genetics uses twin and adoption studies to see how much variation is explained by genetics. It does not do so perfectly, but to say it does not "convey any information about the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors" is not true. It should say "it does not necessarily convey information". To say it never conveys any information is just misleading, and a fringe view in behavioural genetics.
For example, are you claiming that if children adopted to high SES have better educational attainment than those adopted to low SES families, that "does not convey any information" about whether family SES influences educational attainment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:ee82:7701:386b:701d:db7d:2cc (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of content

User:Spy-cicle twice has removed a passage about test scores of Africans in the UK relative to whites. Spy-cicle's edit summary claims that it's "cherry-picking" and complains that it relates only to black/white comparison and not to other racial groups. Neither reason is valid. The material provides balance (the opposite of "cherry-picking") because the article refers extensively to cases where blacks test lower than whites, while this passage shows that the reverse sometimes occurs. The fact that the material relates to black/white comparison is not a logical reason to remove it. So I've restored it again.

Spy-cicle's second edit summary also falsely states that I was the editor who put the material in the article. I was not. NightHeron (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, it does seem relevant, on the face of it. I'm not sure how a systematic analysis of a national dataset counts as "cherry-picking". Guy (help!) 10:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Firstly please self-undo you revert. The ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content not me. Secondly, I am sorry for not realising it was another editor who orignally added the text, though you reverted me the first time. On the matter at hand, on such a controversial topic the sourcing and text need to be well kept. One of the reasons I removed the text was because it only compared Black Africans to White Britons despite the fact there were a number of other ethnicities listed. The topic is called "Race and intelligence" meaning that the text should be beyond that narrow scope. It also did not incorporate ther RSs like these [11] [12]. There was also referencing and formatting issues. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The onus is not on NightHeron who did not add it in the first place. Second, it is highly relevant and properly sourced material, I guess you don't like it because it spoils your narrative. The big problem with this article is that it is heavily US-biased and the data are consequently biased. But just for your information, the same analysis of academic attainment in UK schools has kids of far-east origin coming out top, then African and Indian origin, then Pakistan-origin and White British, then Bangladesh and finally Afro-Caribbean-origin boys. The inference is tempting: in the US and UK, the disadvantaged kids come from populations that were subject to unnatural selection by plantation owners. The material is entirely valid and should remaim. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Flynn effect does not occur on g & why were surveys on the estimates of how much the gap is due to hereditary factors by intelligence researchers removed?

The flynn effect does NOT occur on g: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000226

Why does this keep getting removed? The study is valid. If it isn't then post a citation to a paper critiquing it.

Furthermore why were two surveys that asked IQ researchers to estimate how much of the black-white intelligence gap is attributable to genetic factors removed?

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-17587-001


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265167014

The MAJORITY of intelligence researchers agree that the IQ gap between blacks and whites is partially due to genetic factors. To claim that this is a "fringe" view is laughable.

This article does not adhere to the neutral standards set out by this site. It's disingenuous and incredibly biased.Abatementyogin (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The first issue is a claim presented as fact, based on a selective, disputed interpretation of a single primary source of unestablished weight. Regardless of how you strongly you feel about the source, there is little point pretending this is not controversial. We do not present fringe claims as mundane truths based on technicalities. If you know of WP:SECONDARY sources discussing this study, present them here for discussion instead of edit warring to repeatedly restore this content.
The second question digs deep into the paper-mines, and cites some weak and fringe material. The Psycnnet paper is from 1987 which fails Wikipedia:RS AGE, especially for WP:FRINGE topics. The second link is to a poster from a 2013 presentation by Heiner Rindermann, Coyle, and Becker, who would go on to co-author Intelligence of Nation with Richard Lynn in 2019. Again, this poster is not sufficient for any specific details without more context then would be justified by the weight of these sources, and there is no point in pretending these researchers are not controversial. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
In what way is it "fringe" beyond you stating it is? You have yet to substantiate this claim at all. The study is a meta-analysis that examines numerous studies on this topic. Do you have a criticism of this study? Could you cite it and point out the methodological flaws? You cannot, so please step off and stop a removing pertinent and peer-reviewed study because it doesn't align with your views.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rcws-T0AAAAJ

Look at that! The paper I'm citing has been cited 105 times! Yeah dude, sure sounds like a fringe researcher who holds no credibility at all! /s

The journal this paper was published in has one of the strongest impact factors in the field of psychology! Your and Nightheron's claims are completely unsubstantiated at best, and maliciously false at worst.

The Snyderman surveys have been cited hundreds of times and the consensus of most researchers is that it's valid survey. You cannot cite a single paper that proves these papers are methodologically flawed without resorting to ad hominems. Richard Lewontin is cited all the time by the left, yet he openly admitted to involving himself on Marxist associations. Does that mean we can stop citing him too? Stephen Gould was exposed as a liar and charlatan when he made downright false claims about Morton's research. Can he stop being cited too?
This article isn't in the least bit neutral nor does it accurately sum up the research on this subject. It's incredibly biased.Abatementyogin (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
After lengthy discussions, a consensus of editors (see [13]) determined that the views of Nijenhuis, Rindermann and others who claim racial genetic differences in intelligence are fringe views. That decision was reviewed at [WP:AN] and overwhelmingly approved by admins. Your own personal opinion does not take precedence over consensus. NightHeron (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It's quite telling that after all this time you've yet to cite a single paper that critiques the papers I'm citing. [redacted per WP:NPA --JBL (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)] Abatementyogin (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
A fringe primary source -- such as an article supporting creationism, homeopathy, or racial pseudoscience -- does not become RS just because no mainstream scholar has bothered to write an article directly refuting it. NightHeron (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The bit about being cited 105 times is misleading, to put it mildly. At least one of those citations is from 2010, three years before the paper itself was published, and is by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen. Other citations include many from Nijenhuis himself, as well as unreliable sources such as Kierkegaard's OpenPsych, and Noah Carl writing for its successor at MDPI. The walled-garden problem here has often been mentioned already. Likewise, there is a disproportionate tendency for these few, focused academics to cite their own and each other's work. Clearly, the number of citations is not telling the whole story, even if that number is accurate. This is why we need context from reliable sources for things like this.
The bit about Gould being "exposed" as charlatan (which is not accurate) is non-productive to improving this article. Since this detail is an oft-repeated talking point which has nothing to do with this specific edit, this suggests this proposal is coming from within the same echo-chamber as Mankind Quarterly, Openpsych, and "HBD" blogs. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Define "mainstream scholar". Nijenhuis' papers have been cited numerous times with regards to this debate. See for yourself: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=16072142069713139112 in addition both surveys conducted on this find that the majority of intelligence researchers agree that the IQ gap between blacks and whites is partially due to genetic factors. Again said surveys have been cited hundreds of times just check google scholar. You've yet to cite a single methodological flaw with these studies other than ad hominems directed at these researchers. You don't get to define "mainstream" yourself. This article isn't neutral and is disingenuousAbatementyogin (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Abatementyogin, Reliable. Independent. Secondary. Show sources that meet all three. I realise that you are extremely inexperienced, and this is your first foray outside the sphere of advocating gun rights on Wikipedia. Perhaps read some of the talk archives for this page? Guy (help!) 08:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
All of those papers I've cited have been peer-reviewed and published in journals with high impact factors for psychology. There is no reason not to include them as they are pertinent. If there are criticisms regarding the methodology of said papers then they should also be cited in the article but as it stands they've been completely excluded. The surveys regarding the views of intelligence researchers for instance have been cited without issue in this article for a long time until nightheron decided to remove them.Abatementyogin (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Abatementyogin, the existence of outliers claiming a link between race and intelligence has never been in doubt. The significance of those outliers is, and remains so despite your obviously fervent belief to the contrary.
Now is not really a good time to promote racist pseudoscience on Wikipedia I think. Guy (help!) 14:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
"Outliers" ok, so you should be able to cite papers that critique the methodologies of the ones I'm citing, right? Yet you won't even let them be posted on the article. All you do is bring up racism. Again, the two surveys conducted on this find that the majority of intelligence researchers agree the the gap is partially genetic, and we have a paper that shows the Flynn effect not occur on g. Do you have criticisms of the methodology used in these papers?Abatementyogin (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
All of this has been discussed before in great detail, and the omission of fringe primary sources is supported by consensus. However, since you seem disinclined to read the earlier discussions, I'll briefly explain why the one relatively recent survey is unreliable. Its lead author is Heiner Rindermann, who's well known for promoting racial pseudoscience. Like Nijenhuis, he has recently (2017) published in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. If you read the Wikipedia article on that journal, you'll understand why no mainstream scholar would write for such a journal. Someone with an extreme POV can easily create a strong bias in a survey. It's Rindermann who decides who the "experts" are who get surveyed, it's Rindermann who decides how the questions are worded, and it's Rindermann who interprets the results. In addition, like most surveys, there was a fairly low response rate. Given Rindermann's reputation on race, likeminded "experts" would tend to return the survey, while people who disagree with Rindermann and mistrust his motives would throw it in the trash. It is no surprise that there are quite a few likeminded people associated with Mankind Quarterly, the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), and the official ISIR journal Intelligence. That's all that the survey shows. It is an unreliable source written so as to promote a fringe viewpoint. NightHeron (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
guilt by association, and furthermore the survey by rindermann wasn't the only one cited.Abatementyogin (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The other survey is 1/3 century old. The authors' stated purpose was to prove that the US media had a "liberal bias" (much as Trump and his people claim today), so the authors are hardly neutral surveyors.
It's not "guilt by association" to point out that Rindermann and Nijenhuis have published in a notorious white-supremacist journal. It's their choice to publish there. A mainstream researcher would not publish their research in a journal that's widely known as an outlet for racist pseudoscience. NightHeron (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Once again completely irrelevant. This Do you have links to peer-reviewed papers critiquing the surveys or Nijenhuis' paper? I'd be interested in giving them a look.Abatementyogin (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether the Flynn effect is "on g" is a technical and probably pointless issue for this article. If there is no explanation of why g-ness or lack thereof would matter, then it should be left out, or mentioned as an issue that exists with a pointer to a list of references. It is more important to get the basic things correct about the Flynn effect: it shows IQ scores can show large populationwide environmental influence (whether or not the scores reflect "true g" as much after the increase is a separate issue), but it is a rising tide that has lifted (almost) all boats around the world and within countries to a similar extent, so not the kind of environmental influence that is likely to cause much change in group IQ differences. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you but I quote from the article: "Nisbett et al. (2012a, p. 146) make the same point, noting also that the increase in the IQ scores of black test takers necessarily indicates an increase in g." This is just false.Abatementyogin (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits to subsection on Heritability within and between groups

In addition to copy-editing, I shortened the subsection as follows: (1) I deleted the 5th and 6th paragraphs (starting with In regards to the IQ gap), which give undue attention to Jensen (with no clear explanation of what his "x-factor" is supposed to be or whether it exists) and largely repeat content that's covered with clearer explanations elsewhere in the article, such as the sections on the Flynn effect and the Spearman hypthesis. (2) The 7th paragraph relates to heritability within a group, and is off-topic. (3) The 8th paragraph is not clearly written, and it largely repeats content that's explained in detail in the previous section on "Environmental influences." (4) I deleted the 9th paragraph, which is devoted to three sources all written by advocates of genetic explanations of group differences in intelligence. The first sentence refers to studies that survey scientific estimates on the heritability of the IQ gap [between races]. Since there is no scientific evidence of this, what's being surveyed is not "scientific estimates" but rather speculation and prejudices. Of the three sources, one is the statement written by Linda Gottfredson (who's been supported financially by the Pioneer Fund) that was published in The Wall Street Journal in support of The Bell Curve; this statement was discussed earlier in the subsection on "The Pioneer Fund and The Bell Curve." The other two sources are surveys. The first was conducted in 1984 by Snyderman-Rothman and published in 1988 in their book The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy, claiming to document liberal bias in media coverage of scientific findings regarding intelligence quotient (from the book's Wikipedia page). The second one was a 2013 follow-up by Rindermann-Coyle-Becker, of which the senior author Rindermann is a leading advocate of fringe theories on race and intelligence. The latter source was debated at great length in the course of the RfC at WP:FTN (and also at WP:RSN), since it was the main source cited by those who claimed that belief in genetic racial differences in intelligence is not fringe. Since the organizers of the survey controlled the methodology (who received the survey, how the questions were worded, etc.), it's not surprising that the results were aligned with Rindermann's POV. NightHeron (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what SMcCandlish had been saying all along. He mentioned several times that the RFC actually was about whether NightHeron could purge the article of all sources that are in some was supportive of the hereditarian view, although not everyone who supported the RFC understood this was the intention. Now that NightHeron is doing exactly that, and arguing above that the RFC supports this action, we can see that SMcCandlish's interpretation was correct. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
AndewNguyen: You claim I'm "purg[ing] the article of all sources that are in some way supportive of the hereditarian view." This is nonsense. After my edits there still are (and still will be when I'm done) many references to the most notable advocates of genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines -- to Jensen, Rushton, Hunt, Herrnstein & Murray. Of course, the article won't be saturated with dozens of references to them as it was before. According to WP:FRINGE, the work of notable fringe authors should be cited and described, while being careful to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE between their views and mainstream views.
You've already lost two appeals of the RfC, one to WP:AN and the other (initiated by you) to the Arbitration Committee. It's time for you to drop the stick and respect consensus. NightHeron (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
You already have two editors objecting to what you are doing and calling for yet another RfC, so clearly your interpretation of consensus is faulty. It's time to stop and discuss further (yeah, with another damned RfC if need it). There also an OR assumption going on here, that everything that points to anything genetic relating to any testable cognitive function is part of some "hereditarian view of intelligence", with a further implication that anyone presenting any data that relates to this is a racist. But this simply isn't actually the case. Some particular cognitive task isn't "intelligence", and a genetic factor is a "race". Races are, genetically speaking, an illusion (see WP:R&E for a summary). The reality is more technical: specific genes, chromosomes, and haplogroups, which do not correspond to "races", but permeate between them freely. Whether any of the science purporting to show a genetic influence on the results of particular narrow tests of specific cognitive tasks is any good or not is one thing, but that's determined (e.g. by systematic reviews) on a case-by-case basis; we do not just blindly assume that it's all "racist" and "fringe", even if some of it (especially in the early-to-mid-20th century) clearly was.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Nah, NightHeron is fine here. The people opposing him have been shown to be coordinating off-wiki among pro-eugenicist groups. I have e-mailed some evidence to some admins about this, but I won't say more about it. Don't stop, NightHeron. Ignore the haters. You can join us, SMcCandlish, if you want, but try not to stick up for the problematic users still active here, if you would. jps (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "you can join us" – See WP:OWN and WP:VESTED. This is not your private club, and you don't control who may participate here or in what capacity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
ජපස who are you implicating here in "people opposing him..."? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I prefer to keep that information to myself because of the way this stuff gets nasty. I'm just putting it out there that I do know about the coordinated campaign, and it is not indicative of anything like "consensus building" that is supposedly happening or not happening. jps (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish's statement to NightHeron that You already have two editors objecting to what you are doing and calling for yet another RfC, so clearly your interpretation of consensus is faulty. might or might not be true. Let's explore it. Given that the close of the RfC was subject to community review, and the community endorsed that close, Jweiss11 and Maximumideas what changes would you support in light of the consensus found by the community if not the ones that NightHeron already did? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) fixing ping of Maximumideas. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
More precisely, I mean that NH's assumption of exact consensus for what he wants to do is self-evidently incorrect, because there are multiple objections and they are outweighing him at present (there isn't a upswell of views in support of his goals/tactics dwarfing the objections). I'm not predicting what the ultimate consensus outcome might be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm upswelling. Should we hold a !vote to see what the upswell is? jps (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
ජපස, you should be aware that various observers (not just participants) in this long drama have considered NH to be among "the problematic users still active here" in this topic area. Being on the opposite side of Disruptive Editor A doesn't make Disruptive Editor B right or non-disruptive. Editwarring to get what you want in the face of multiple editors objecting is by definition disruptive editing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I would warn you that some "observers" with whom you may be in contact may not be on the up-and-up here. I know that I'm on a few lists of "problem editors" too, for example. NH is doing very fine work. jps (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what conspiracy you're imagining, but it is certainly imaginary. My having a disagreement with you and NH about the extent of this deletionism spree doesn't require that I be "in contact" with anyone about whom you have whatever suspicious you have. I'm quite capable of reading and participating without someone leading me around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I've noted a specific issue with the lead. See a few sections down at "Still have serious POV issue with the lead". Jweiss11 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Jweiss11, for highlighting that. Maybe I'm missing something but those concerns don't seem responsive to the RfC but are certainly important in their own right. My question is based on the consensus the community has expressed in the RfC, and in endorsing the RfC, which changes would you suggest based on that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, we are talking about Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 70#RfC on race and intelligence, yes? I commented on the RFC, but did not follow it closely afterwards. Skimming the rest now. I'm in agreement with SMcCandlish's comment of "Fallacious proposition..." I certainly disagree with TonyBallioni's close of the RFC. Strikes me a bit of a supervote on a discussion that's lacked a clear consensus. Based on the RFC, any source that suggests the possibility of a non-zero genetic component to the drivers behind racial/ethnic group mean differences in measured intelligence is be considered fringe? I think that's going to make constructing a fair and balanced article on the subject near impossible. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni's close of the RfC was reviewed at WP:AN, where the overwhelming majority of admins supported the close. Why do you think your personal opinion trumps consensus? NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not just my personal opinion. There are others who agree me with. Can you point me to that review at WP:AN? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem here (or, technically it's more of a symptom) is that the RfC close is very specific and very limited, and all it does is tell us what we already knew (that the scientific consensus is that a connection between "race" and "intelligence" is essentially pseudoscientific). But this is a vacuous truth, and doesn't lead to the conclusion that NH would like it to lead to, nor does it support NH's renewed rush to delete thousands of bytes of material. Some of that material probably should be removed, but some should not, and it's not NH's sole purview to determine what is kept.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly object to the repeated insinuations by User:SMcCandlish that I'm guilty of misconduct. Four days ago McCandlish said that I was "one of those whose behavior I already thought should be examined with an eye to a T-ban." This statement was made at WP:ARCA, which was discussing AndewNguyen's appeal of the consensus close of the RfC at WP:FTN and the confirmation of the close at WP:AN. McCandlish's suggestion to ArbCom that I should be T-banned was made in connection with a series of baseless accusations against me made by AndewNguyen and an IP editor 2600.xxx (who was subsequently T-banned from this page). Of the various editors who opposed the RfC and are furious about the close going against them, none have pursued their misconduct accusations against me through the usual channels. But they keep repeating them anyway, in obvious violation of WP:AGF.

Predictably, McCandlish misstates what I have said about consensus. I have never claimed exact consensus for my edits. What there's consensus for is treating the viewpoint that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines as fringe (this was exactly what the RfC decided) and removing false balance (per WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV). That's all. In my editing I also removed material that I thought was repetitive, poorly explained, and/or off-topic, and I made grammar/typo/style corrections as well. But other editors have hugely more experience than I have had (just about 1500 edits in my 2 years), so obviously I expect there'll be further improvements of the article, including corrections of any bad edits I've made.

I count 4 editors besides McCandlish who have objected to my removal of false balance, all of whom opposed the RfC and seem unwilling to accept consensus. As I recall, roughly 50 editors participated in the RfC over a period of 35 days. Contrary to what McCandlish says, extensive editing of Race and intelligence to remove false balance is not disruptive; repeatedly refusing to accept consensus is. NightHeron (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing the consensus that was reached with a consensus for what you wish had been reached, but in point of fact the RfC closer flat-out ignored the censorious goal of it, and addressed only the verging-on-tautological question of whether a claim that intelligence is a racially inherited trait is pseudoscientific (which everyone already knew was the case). I.e., the RfC changed absolutely nothing at all, which is why ArbCom was asked to re-address this issue. We are right exactly back where we started before the RfC and before the noticeboarding that preceded it and before the attempt to delete the article. This entire several months of attempted dispute resolution has been a waste of time and unproductive, because it's the same two entrenched camps at war with each other, while those of us with a more reasoned approach to this topic can't get anything done here. It's clear that you feel put-upon, but you'll get over it. My position in this entire extended debate is that the extreme battlegrounders on both sides should be T-banned, not just you in particular. One (the 2600:... anon) on the other side already has been, but there are more verging-on-SPA actors on both sides who just need to be excluded at length from this topic area.

In response to your over-reaction to imaginary criticism in a thread below, I'll add that it wouldn't hurt to stop taking actual criticism of your behavior as a personal attack that you need to howl about, too. If you're being criticized, consider that there are good reasons for it, especially when it's coming from a centrist on the issue, not one of your entrenched ideological opponents. I'm strongly reminded of Jytdog and QuackGuru and their difficulties in working on Electronic cigarette and other MEDRS topics without getting topic-banned, despite being convinced they were fighting the good policy fight. Being more in the right on a scientific, moral, or guideline-compliance matter isn't an excuse for being so uncollaborative that you piss off every other editor around you.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What you say about the RfC close at WP:FTN (see [14]) is just flat-out ridiculous. The close stated: "Having read the positions of this RfC twice, I find the following points: There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above." This answered the question I asked in the RfC (Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?) in the affirmative. That's why opponents of the RfC desperately tried to get the close overturned, even going to the extreme of asking for a review at ArbCom.
I suppose I should be relieved that I'm not the only one you think should be T-banned. Everyone on both sides should be. Perhaps the best thing would be to get everyone except you T-banned, don't you think? NightHeron (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish and NightHeron, a reminder this a content not conduct forum. If you have conduct issues I'd suggest you go to WP:AE or the currently open WP:ARCA. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
True enough, and I'm unlikely to respond to NH further here. He seems more interested in fighting than anything else, and I have little patience for it. I anticipate this "slow-editwar" mess ending in yet another string of RfCs and noticeboardings and AE filings and whatnot, until ArbCom takes a WP:ARBR&I2 case. However, part of this sub-thread actually matters (though the last part of what NH just posted is too silly to respond to). As for the first part, NH is just repeating what I said in slightly different wording (yet calling it "ridiculous"), then leaping to a false and unsupportable conclusion. The actual reason the RfC closure was challenged (which is very easy to discern by simply reading the AN thread) is because the closer did not address the second half of the RfC, which was entirely about suppression of source material and of WP coverage of it in any depth. That's the part we cared about and which we commented on in detail. Yet here NH is selectively quoting only the first part of the RfC, and trying to suppress the material the second part was about, as if the RfC had concluded in favor of that suppression, which it expressly did not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
How absurd! Nothing in the RfC asked for "suppression." The opponents of the RfC sometimes claimed that deciding that a theory is fringe is tantamount to censorship, and then they argued against that straw man. Since censorship or suppression was not the issue, the closer didn't talk about suppression or censorship. Yes, please read the whole WP:AN discussion, in which almost all the admins (at one point I counted something like 8 to 1) approved of TonyBallioni's closing. Once again, your own idiosyncratic opinion rather than consensus at WP:FTN and WP:AN is what Wikipedia should follow. Oh, and editors you dislike should be T-banned. NightHeron (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The RfC was written to provide a pretext for suppression (by deprecation as "fringe") of material by any author who agreed, somewhere, in some publication, at some time, "to some degree" with the idea of a correlation between racial ancestry and intelligence. Since this includes pretty much all authors of summaries of the evidence for the hereditarian position, and anti-hereditarian authors are rather selective of what evidence they choose to rebut, it amounts to a motte-and-bailey request to censor most such information from the article under the pretense of DUE and FRINGE and so forth. You sold the RfC as merely asking about the narrow question (what SMcCandlish calls "tautological" above) of, e.g., articles containing claims of a proven, causal, genetic link between R and I being fringe, and made mighty BLUDGEON efforts to misdirect from the extremely broad scope of the RfC when this was challenged, by insisting that this was all only about some patently clear issue of the narrow stuff being fringe. The real issue, as people pointed out at the time, was the attempt to cover the much broader and non-fringe aspects of the hereditarian theory (in particular, the state of the evidence for and against it) under the same umbrella simply because some author "to some degree" expressed agreement with the idea, a vague standard that could mean anything. It does not help to engage in revisionist history about this, and as others are telling you, there is no evidence of a consensus for the super-broad interpretation of the RfC, which you have in any case been exceeding by excluding definitively non-fringe sources such as Earl Hunt based on personal opinion and synthesis. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
You again misrepresent the RfC and the consensus decision, which was upheld overwhelmingly by admins. You falsely state that the RfC broadly declared as fringe "the idea of a CORRELATION between racial ancestry and intelligence" (emphasis added). No, no one is disputing that there is a correlation. Correlation is not the same thing as causality. The issue stated clearly in the RfC is that Scientific racism maintains that the correlation is CAUSED in part by a genetic difference between races, with some races being genetically better endowed with intelligence than others.
The views of Jensen and his followers are covered in the article; I count 9 citations of Jensen (or Jensen/Rushton). The fact that a viewpoint is fringe does not imply censorship. Intelligent design and Homeopathy are also fringe -- in each case with millions of believers, including some in the academic world -- but they are not "censored."
You should stop making accusations against me, and learn to accept consensus, which is the way Wikipedia works. NightHeron (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I haven't misrepresented anything, and you haven't answered any substantive point from myself or McCandlish other than to harp irrelevantly on minor word choices. To help you address the actual points rather than the wording, here it is again with one word added that seems to overcome your quibbles. (And indentation moved back to previous level) :
The RfC was written to provide a pretext for suppression (by deprecation as "fringe") of material by any author who agreed, somewhere, in some publication, at some time, "to some degree" with the idea of a correlation between racial ancestry and genotypic intelligence. Since this includes pretty much all authors of summaries of the evidence for the hereditarian position, and anti-hereditarian authors are rather selective of what evidence they choose to rebut, it amounts to a motte-and-bailey request to censor most such information from the article under the pretense of DUE and FRINGE and so forth. You sold the RfC as merely asking about the narrow question (what SMcCandlish calls "tautological" above) of, e.g., articles containing claims of a proven, causal, genetic link between R and I being fringe, and made mighty BLUDGEON efforts to misdirect from the extremely broad scope of the RfC when this was challenged, by insisting that this was all only about some patently clear issue of the narrow stuff being fringe. The real issue, as people pointed out at the time, was the attempt to cover the much broader and non-fringe aspects of the hereditarian theory (in particular, the state of the evidence for and against it) under the same umbrella simply because some author "to some degree" expressed agreement with the idea, a vague standard that could mean anything. It does not help to engage in revisionist history about this, and as others are telling you, there is no evidence of a consensus for the super-broad interpretation of the RfC, which you have in any case been exceeding by excluding definitively non-fringe sources such as Earl Hunt based on personal opinion and synthesis. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
We've already seen this comment, and this minor word addition changes nothing at all. "Racial ancestry" is just "race" with lipstick, and "genotypic intelligence" is nothing. It's a buzzword used by Woodley, Lynn, Davide Piffer of OpenPsych... and almost nobody else. This also proposes the same tired, ultra-simplistic false equivalence between "hereditarian" and "anti-hereditarian", as if people opposed to racialist pseudoscience were merely opposed to heredity. Again, nothing new here. Coming back a couple weeks later to repeat a comment almost verbatim while accusing others of "harping" on word choice is ironic, also. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
this minor word addition changes nothing at all. Well, it changes the phrase from an accurate and sufficient representation of the RfC to an indisputably accurate representation, removing one attempted line of misdirection from the discussion. Certainly the earlier phrasing was meant to change nothing (in the RfC), i.e., to correctly state what the RfC was about. In that respect "racial ancestry" is better than "race" at describing the intended scope of the RfC (say in relation to IQ studies of biracial children).
"Anti-hereditarian" (as I use it) literally means authors or papers that explicitly hold up the hereditarian interpretation for dispute. Nisbett, Flynn and Turkheimer are anti-hereditarian. For example, Steele and Aaronson's studies of stereotype threat are environmentalist, and I presume they are environmentalists in disposition, but Aaronson's coauthorship on a paper with Nisbett and Turkheimer making their usual case, is anti-hereditarian. If you have any further problem with this vocabulary please specify. The ultimate disposition of the hereditarian-vs-environmentalist issue really is binary, can only be binary pretty much by definition, so when people argue which outcome will prevail (and there are no specific environmental hypotheses on offer) the positions are hereditarian, anti-hereditarian and nothing else.
"genotypic IQ" isn't a buzzword, it is a completely standard usage (genotypic value) from quantitative genetics employed regularly by anti-hereditarian sources such as James Flynn and Richard Nisbett, and not only them. Flynn's 1980 book has "genotypic" some 50 times, a majority of those being "genotypic IQ" or "genotypic intelligence", one or both of which are also listed in the index. Nisbett uses genotypic IQ and phenotypic IQ in the main text of his 2009 book (an extreme environmentalist account of intelligence), and much more frequently in Appendix A where he attempts to refute hereditarian arguments about black-white IQ differences. In fact more frequently per page than Flynn; they both seem to like these terms, because there isn't a better one for conveying that distinction in discussions of intelligence-and-heredity. I'll take your word for it that Lynn and his friends use the term, maybe even as frequently as Nisbett and Flynn do when discussing the same stuff. They could hardly do otherwise as there is no good substitute for genotypic/genotype that is equally succint and carries the same information.
It's pretty odd to display a word-and-phrase level of hermeneutic familiarity with obscure hereditarian literature, while being unaware of bedrock terms in the broader (not race-and-IQ related) context like "genotypic value". RationalWiki, which seems to be where you and some others here are getting their information, is not a competent source, and on this cluster of subjects much of it was literally written by loons who were eventually banned there. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Good lord, first you intentionally add redundant content to the talk page, and now this? If you have a point about improving the article, make it. Your eagerness to debate minutia suggests that your goal is to turn this into a forum. That's not going to turn out well.
Funny you mention "loons" writing for Rationalwiki. Wikipedia is not RationalWiki, but here on Wikipedia this topic also has a well-known history of disruptive editors, sock puppets, and off-site canvassing. I'm guessing you already know that.
"Genotypic" is a term in genetics. "Genotypic IQ" is, in the 21st century, mostly used by the same small group of people, several of whom have been banned from Wikipedia for disruptive editing, sock puppetry, and pushing fringe perspectives. If you think I'm wrong about that... okay? When combined with biological racialism it's still pseudoscience no matter who says it. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Before you showed up, the topic of discussion was whether the RfC of 6 weeks ago is being misrepresented and misapplied in the subsequent edits on the article. My initial comment to Nightheron addressed that, she misdirected based on irrelevant linguistic issues, and when those were pinned down you chimed in with even more pedantic linguistics. If you have something to say about the RfC matter, I'm all ears. Revisionist history about a fabricated consensus for one editor to personal take over the article and define whoever she (dis)likes as "fringe" doesn't cut it. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
p.s. if you like, collapse everything from my second comment to here in a ctop, I will point Nightheron to it in a short comment, and the original RfC discussion can proceed if anyone wishes to continue it. The relevant content has been posted and your objections answered. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not an "irrelevant linguistic issue" to point out that it is not correlation but rather causality that's in dispute. Mainstream scholars agree that there are correlations between race and scores on the customary measures of so-called "intelligence." But they do not agree with the small group of researchers who claim that there's evidence that genetics is a cause of these correlations. That small group of fringe researchers, who form what Grayfell aptly terms an "echo-chamber," repeatedly cite and favorably peer-review each other's work. The same is true for other fringe groups, such as homeopaths, creationists, climate change deniers, and so on.
The RfC was stated clearly and specifically: the claim that certain races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is fringe.
I did not "personally take over" anything. I made some baseline edits, mainly to remove obvious WP:FALSEBALANCE per the consensus close of the RfC. I explained the edits on the talk-page. Other editors have improved and corrected those edits. 898 editors have this page watchlisted. I couldn't do anything sneaky even if I wanted to. Your charges against me -- that I've "taken over" the page and am misrepresenting the RfC -- are ludicrous. NightHeron (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(I registered an account, the IP73.x address no longer exists.)

There was never any confusion of correlation for causation, as was patently clear from the multiple references to "genetic" and "hereditarian" (i.e., genetic potential and genetic causation) not to mention months of discussion, an RfC, a talk page and an article all focused on that very issue rather than some tabula rasa. The claim that there is a correlation between race and genotypic IQ is the causal, genetic hereditarian hypothesis, or rather your misinterpretation of hereditarianism.

The actual hypothesis of Jensen and his camp is not only that a genetic contribution to IQ differences exists (the "correlation with race") but also that it is large enough that it can't be ignored without adverse consequences in areas such as education, sociology and public policy. Fixating on this fake, pretend-hereditarian debate about whether there are any genetic differences at all has caused problems with editing the article, and has created problems on this talk page, at the RfC and RSN. For example, it has led you to misclassify authors such as Hunt as hereditarian; to wrongly describe them as "fringe" and remove them as sources; and to rail against the Rindermann survey for even contemplating the possibility of differences.

Mainstream scholars do not agree that there's evidence that genetics is a cause of these correlations is false, assuming you mean reasonably expert sources rather than anyone with a PhD and an opinion. There isn't much dispute about whether "there is evidence" for genetic (and environmental) explanations. The issue, as I think is explained in several textbooks that were cited in the article, is about the strength of the evidence for each theory. Even strong or polemic statements by anti-hereditarians like Nisbett and Turkheimer tend to be made with a lot of qualifications, it is rare to find an outright claim that no evidence exists because that is not the typical mainstream (expert) view.

The RfC was not clearly or neutrally stated by any stretch of the imagination. The ostensible question and the Discussion section justifying it contained some 3-4 different and contradictory positions. Your tidal wave of 70+ comments defended only the narrowest and least disputable among those. The subsequent application of the RfC uses the broadest possible interpretation, even though there is no evidence from Yes-voters' RfC comments that this is the version they supported. There were similar (but lesser) problems with the 4th AfD and this is something that should be corrected by policy, i.e., voted proposals on contentious pages should be clear enough that they don't require a long explanation, and the proposer should not dominate the comments or "interpret" the issue for others.

Since the RfC nearly all edits to the article were done by you, or reverted by you, and talk page threads have been almost exclusively about those actions or counter-actions. There is no indication that anyone else shares your (revisionist) opinion that the RfC was a massive and overwhelmingly admin-ratified consensus, nor has anyone described what was supposedly agreed upon in the sweeping terms that you do. So yes, this is absolutely a personal takeover. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As someone who watches this article and discussion (and occasionally contributes), let me affirm that I for one am very happy to leave it to Nightheron to implement consensus. I have completed confidence in their ability to do so because I can see that their work is properly supported by reliable sources and background study. In this case (as with, I strongly suspect, the very large majority of the nearly 900 watchers), silence absolutely does signify assent. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
+1 to JMF. --JBL (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
One more in support of JMF and NightHeron here. The consensus among population geneticists is clearly on their side too. Generalrelative (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"population groups"

The header to the article currently contains the following statement: "In particular, there is no scientific evidence that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to any claimed genetic differences between those groups." Disproof is easy: compare a population of healthy 46-chromosome humans to a population of humans with trisomy 21. The latter population will have lower average IQ scores and that is because of the extra chromosome material, which is both genetic and heritable. The effort to strike the objectionable concept of race from the statement may have had merit, but the way it was done resulted in a statement which was over-broad and quite false. The problem appears to me to be one of phrasing or wording, not an underlying factual error, and should be fairly easy to resolve by an editor seasoned to the particular issues this article carries with it. That isn't me so I'm going to leave it to someone else to make the improvement. 07:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I inserted "racial or ethnic" before "population groups". NightHeron (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Good catch. Generalrelative (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project. I have started a discussion on whether this organization is presented in a balanced way. Currently the article presents the organization as non-partisan and unbiased, while the weight of evidence seems to suggest it is anything but –– with regard to both GMO and genetics-of-racial-difference issues. My sources, however, (with the exception of the Chicago Tribune) have some partisanship issues of their own, so I'd like to get consensus from the community on their reliability before proceeding with bold edits. Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

IQ validity

Parental and child IQ is highly predictive of a child's future education, income, lifespan, and low criminality even after controlling for SES. IQ is the most predictive psychometric ever. It is foundational to psychology. This article does not present any of this information and uses Gould's argument that conflates intelligence with skill or creativity. IQ is a psychometric that by definition measures general intelligence and it is highly predictive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5D60:7920:114F:B8E1:1B24:E7A1 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My impression is that these issues are adequately discussed in Intelligence quotient. An interested reader can click through the "Main article" link under "Intelligence, IQ, g and IQ tests" (perhaps that subheading should be shortened for clarity, BTW). This article is not about IQ per se but about purported connections between it and race. Note too that Gould is only mentioned once in this article and not in the way you seem to suggest. Generalrelative (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Heritability of Americans over 20

Heritability for all Americans (black and white) was found to be 80% over the age of 20. In twin heritability studies the population is not a race. The population is the group being studied. Americans, blacks and whites, have IQ heritability of 80%. Over 400 studies have been performed on heritability of IQ with the value being somewhere between 50-90% for various populations. There is no BGH needed when the population is all Americans. This article is badly written as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5D60:7920:114F:B8E1:1B24:E7A1 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the place to discuss this would be Heritability of IQ. Generalrelative (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Brain size, sex differences and IQ

The section on "Brain size" points out that brain size "is unlikely to be a good measure of IQ as brain size also differs between men and women, but without significant differences in IQ". This might need clarification to avoid voicing opinion on what is deemed "significant", e.g. about 5 IQ points https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16248939/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.180.141 (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lewtonin fallacy of race.

Main article: Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy

I think I'd like to edit a section on race not existing, race does exist and the text of this article employs the lewtonin fallacy. With as few as 100 loci predicted race is 99% accurate. FST shows that some human populations have larger gaps than say coyotes and wolves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5D60:7920:114F:B8E1:1B24:E7A1 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOR for why this section is written the way it is. Wikipedia must present scholarly consensus where it exists and avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. That said, if you have reliably sourced information to add (see WP:RS) then I encourage you to do so. We can always revert and discuss if there is disagreement (per WP:BRD). Generalrelative (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, Edward's assertion of a fallacy has itself been challenged, so a caution about wp:cherrypicking is appropriate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The level of Post Modernist bullshit - "Race" is a social contract... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.61.148 (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually not bullshit. It's called science. Generalrelative (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2020

Lewis Terman's revision is the IQ test primarily used in the United States, the Stanford-Binet.[1] Terman was a proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization.[2] Elisabethmae1 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lewis-Terman
  2. ^ https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-vexing-legacy-of-lewis-terman

Discussion at Talk:Nations and intelligence

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nations and intelligence. Generalrelative (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Heritability of IQ#Claims of "scientific consensus"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Heritability of IQ#Claims of "scientific consensus". Generalrelative (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this issue as well, specifically the following sentence in this article: "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." I was unable to find direct support for that statement in the cited sources - can someone please point me to it, and/or quote the relevant section?
Per my understanding of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Academic_consensus, the consensus claim must be directly supported by a specific statement in a reliable source.
@Grayfell: pinging as you reverted my edit. Stonkaments (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This section is a notification for a separate discussion on another talk page. You are incorrect if you think this hasn't been already discussed a dozen times for this article. If you still wish to pursue this, start a new section after reviewing prior discussions, and also after reviewing the relevant sources for that paragraph. You should also review the sources for section Race and intelligence#Criticisms of race and intelligence as biologically defined concepts which also discuss this consensus in depth. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - do you by chance have a link to the previous discussion on this matter? Stonkaments (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Winegard, Winegard and Anomaly (2020)

Is this paper considered a reliable source? [15]

The authors argue that the high within-group heritability of intelligence makes it more plausible that between-group variation is caused by genes. They go on to state that human populations "almost certain vary in cognitive ability", and argue that hereditarianism is a much more parsimonious explanation for the available data than an environmental one.

I would like to add this information to the article, but want to make sure it's an acceptable source first. Stonkaments (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

All three of those authors are associated with the pro-eugenics "HBD" movement and lack academic legitimacy. So from that, by "populations", they mean race. They are arguing for scientific racism in other words, and this extremely WP:FRINGE claim would need much, much better sources to be included as-is. As an aside, Anomaly likes to spam his work to Wikipedia, which is not a good sign regarding WP:RS. Lacking significant context from a WP:SECONDARY source, this source is not helpful for building this article. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Guilt by association is not a valid argument, nor are they arguing for eugenics or scientific racism as you claim. And how are you determining that they lack academic legitimacy? Have your read the paper, or anything else published in that journal? It sounds to me like you disagree with their POV and seek to de-legitimize it, rather than analyzing it objectively. Stonkaments (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. This issue has been debated ad nauseam on this and similar talk pages, and hard-won consensus has been reached. The argument of this specific paper is a simple rehash of discredited racialist pseudoscience. It presents no original findings and makes no original claims, and even if it did, these findings/claims would need to be verified by a reliable secondary source (as Grayfell notes) since they would contradict the current consensus among population geneticists. If somehow you were to find such a source, the next step in getting this content approved for Wikipedia would then be to reopen an RfC, since this recent one concluded that linking genetics to differences in intelligence between "races" is WP:FRINGE: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence Generalrelative (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Generalrelative Are you saying the Fringe Theories noticeboard discussion ended with a definite conclusion? Bear in mind, consensus is not reached by a majority vote. It seems to me that there was a lot of discussion, and the discussion was closed without any definite conclusion. But, if you know better how to interpret these things, let me know.Truth is KingTALK 21:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Truth Is King Yes, when an RfC is closed the closing admin will make a determination of consensus, which you will find in the box at the top-right of the RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Grayfell,StonkamentsGrayfell, I just wonder if you could provide us with some evidence that the Human Biodiversity movement is pro-eugenics? The article is published in a peer reviewed journal, why do you say that the authors lack academic legitimacy? Please remember, wp:censor.Truth is KingTALK 20:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Generalrelative, how does that refute anything about the paper in question? The paper does not claim there is a genetic link between race and intelligence, which as far as I can tell was the only thing determined to be WP:FRINGE in the RfC. The authors specifically state: "we do not believe there is decisive evidence about the causes of differences in cognitive ability." Rather, they make the argument that there is some evidence that would support a genetic link, which calls into question, for example, the line in the Wikipedia article which says "there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences". Stonkaments (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the closing of the recent RfC on race and intelligence (see [16]), There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above. The claim that there is "some evidence" that whites are genetically superior to blacks is fringe, just as the claim that there is "some evidence" that the Earth is flat or that humans have been abducted by extraterrestrials would be.

The authors of the OP's source are clearly outside the mainstream and hold a fringe POV on issues of race. Jonathan Anomaly published an article titled "Defending eugenics"[1] A letter of complaint to the journal that published it was signed by almost 200 academics [17]. Anomaly and Bo Winegard recently published an article in a philosophical journal that mocked the "vehemence with which many intellectuals in the West resist claims about group differences...in socially valued traits" between men and women and people of different racial or ethnic groups, and accused those intellectuals of making the "egalitarian fallacy".[2] Bo Winegard has called Arthur Jensen his "intellectual hero". Jensen, of course, was one of the best known 20th century advocates of the theory that whites are genetically superior to blacks in intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation that "a genetic link exists between race and intelligence" being fringe necessarily implies that "there is some evidence that there may be a genetic link between race and intelligence" is also fringe. Those are two entirely different statements, with vastly different degrees of certainty. Also, unless I'm mistaken, labeling something as fringe does not mean it should not be included in the article. Per WP:Fringe_theories#Peer-reviewed_sources_help_establish_the_level_of_acceptance, the fact that the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal is an "important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas". Lastly, where are you seeing that the source is making claims about whites being "genetically superior" to blacks? Stonkaments (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anomaly, Jonathan (2018). "Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection". Monash Bioethics Review. 35: 24–35.
  2. ^ Anomaly, Jonathan; Winegard, Bo (2019). "The Egalitarian Fallacy: Are Group Differences Compatible with Political Liberalism?". Philosophia. doi:10.1007/s11406-019-00129-w.
(1) Yes, saying "Elvis is alive" and saying "there is some evidence that Elvis may be alive" are two entirely different statements with different degrees of certainty. But both are fringe. (2) Whether the journal where an article appeared is peer-reviewed is not the only issue. Fringe POVs frequently appear in peer-reviewed journals, especially in the cases of climate change denialism, medical pseudoscience, and racial pseudoscience. A journal founded by a promoter of a fringe POV (Hans Eysenck in this case) and staffed by likeminded editors can easily get a fringe article favorably peer-reviewed. (3) I didn't say that the source made claims about whites being genetically superior to blacks. I said that the authors are known to belong to the fringe group of authors who at times espouse eugenicist and racialist views. NightHeron (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron I have two questions. First, what is "OP" in this instance? The second, why do you say that the RfC resulted in a consensus?Truth is KingTALK 03:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Truth is King: (1) The OP is Stonkaments, who originally proposed the question about the Anomaly-Winegard-Winegard source. (2) The decision of the admin who closed the RfC was that there was a consensus. NightHeron (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron Stonkaments Thanks, NightHeron, I see that now. Is "OP" - original poster? One thing about secondary sources, I notice that virtually none of the primary sources referenced in the article have a significant context from a secondary source. It seems that this standard is being applied inconsistently. Also, one of the arguments for a "yes" answer in the "genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines" RfC was that "race is a social construct." The position that this assertion defeats the notion that there could be "genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines" was made several times by various editors. But Human Biodiversity does not rely on racial terminology. So, because that was an important argument in favor of "fringing" racial differences, that means there is a significant difference between Human Biodiversity, and the position that there are "genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines." Accordingly, just because the one has been ruled "fringe" does not mean that the other would be or should be. Also, I would say that there is a huge difference between an assertion and evidence of the assertion. I would imagine it is fringe to say that LBJ had JFK assassinated. But it is not fringe to say that there is evidence thereof, because there clearly is. Evidence does not mean proof. It is any fact that makes a reasonable person more likely to believe a particular assertion. LBJ was very unhappy as VP under JFK. He gained a lot of weight. He and Bobby Kennedy hated each other. Bobby Kennedy humiliated LBJ. LBJ definitely had a motivation to have JFK killed, thereby freeing himself from the misery of serving as VP in an administration with Bobby Kennedy. That is evidence (far from proof) that LBJ had JFK assassinated. It is also provably true and should not be declared fringe, just because the assertion is fringe. (I'm reading a Robert Caro book).Truth is KingTALK 19:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, OP means original poster. When I was new to Wikipedia, I also didn't know what that meant and (sad to say) got mocked for my ignorance by an experienced editor. I wish Wikipedia would supply new editors with a handy list of all the abbreviations, acronyms, and non-standard word usage that are common in these discussions. There are still several of them that I don't know the meaning of.
The article does have secondary sources that provide context, such as Jackson & Weidmann (ref [1], but used repeatedly) and Saini (ref [120]). The Saini reference is just an article, but she subsequently wrote a book that was useful during the RfC on race and intelligence. That RfC also cited statements by professional associations.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Kennedy assassination theories, but I believe that the consensus view is that there is no credible evidence that LBJ was behind it, and that the conspiracy theory that claims that there is credible evidence that the killing was masterminded by LBJ is fringe. I've never read up on those conspiracy theories, on Wiipedia or elsewhere, but I did find a related brief discussion in the WP:FTN archives about one of the authors who claims that LBJ was behind the assassination, see [18]. NightHeron (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Just for the record, I don't think LBJ somehow had it done. But, after reading the book, it would be hard to blame him if it had crossed his mind.Truth is KingTALK 23:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Speculation about the Kennedy assassination is verging into WP:NOTFORUM territory.
A common problem with fringe theories comes from over-emphasizing the prevalence of dissenting opinions and using that to teach the controversy. This misrepresents what "consensus" means. It doesn't mean that there are no outliers, or that there is nothing else worth studying. Consensus is the accepted baseline. The modern consensus on race is that it's a social construct which sometimes (but not always) correlates with specific biological traits. The consensus on intelligence and especially IQ testing, is... well, it's even more complicated than race. Among the subset of academics who reject the mainstream on race, and also reject the mainstream on intelligence, there is "some evidence" for a connection between race (however they define it) and intelligence (ditto), but this cannot be used to challenge the mainstream consensus on these larger topics.
As for "Human biodiversity", that phrase was coined by anthropologist and biologist Jonathan M. Marks, who is a noted opponent to biological racialism. Steve Sailer co-opted the term to add a scientific patina to his own poorly-supported views of race. Sailer is a blogger and movie critic without any relevant expertise. Sailer has repeatedly cited debunked statistics from Richard Lynn and other discredited academics. Lynn's work is often so flawed it is not even wrong. Lynn's group includes Anomaly and the Winegard bros and a dozen others who's names keep popping up. This group has formed a sort of mutual admiration society, where they all cite each other in sympathetic journals and pseudojournals (such as Mankind Quarterly and OpenPsych). This inflates the citation numbers and gives naive readers the false impression that serious work is happening. It is not serious work, and is not treated as serious work by mainstream geneticists, anthropologists, etc. Some bloggers and alt-right types have also latched on to this phrase as a way to soften scientific racism. This is the HBD movement in a nutshell. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
A few questions: When you use the word "mainstream," what do you mean by that? Are you taking that to be synonymous with "consensus." When you say "mainstream on intelligence" what do you mean by that? When you state that "race ... is a social construct" how does that differ from any other set of words used to categorize a phenomenon, like the words we use to dived up the visible spectrum into colors? If the "consensus on race" is that it sometimes correlates with specific biological traits, then what traits does it correlate to? When you say "but not always" are saying that it is simply not believed to be correlated, or that it could not be correlated? And what traits would fall in this category? Why do you say that Lynn has a "group" - what does that word mean in this context? When you say they form a "mutual admiration society" couldn't you say the same thing about any group of academics that are in agreement, like the board of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists?
Finally, do you believe that you are not required to support assertions that you make on the Wikipedia main space with citations to reliable sources? Truth is KingTALK 17:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you think it's appropriate to ask loaded questions on any talk page, or only on talk pages related to race and intelligence? Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
None of those questions fit the description of loaded question. But do they reflect some frustration at strange dogma having a carefully structured amalgam of ill-defined terms. Yes. Yes it does.Truth is KingTALK 01:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Why has the name of this article been changed?

Last time I looked, this article was called "Race and Intelligence Quotient". I didn't notice any RM proposal or discussion that it should be moved. Is there a good reason why I should not restore to status quo ante? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

[[re|John Maynard Friedman}} how long was it at that title. Here's the move log:

(change visibility) 18:24, 16 September 2008 JGDddad talk contribs block moved page Race and intelligence to H-an'-then R (edit summary removed) (revert) (thank)

(change visibility) 16:32, 27 November 2006 Nukemason2 talk contribs block moved page Race and intelligence to Race, intelligence and the genocidal war on terror (a.k.a White psychological warfare). (Dickwads - you should find a better job than sitting on your arse all day criticising other people's objective (and Christian) criticisms of white racist filth on the internet wikipedia) (revert) (thank)

(change visibility) 16:23, 27 November 2006 Nukemason2 talk contribs block moved page Race and intelligence to Race, intelligence and the genocidal war on terror. (Sick and tired of white people imposing their will on the coloured masses of humanity. White people should fuck off.) (revert) (thank)

(change visibility) 07:27, 21 May 2006 Elliott Small talk contribs block moved page Race and intelligence to Race and IQ Scores over redirect (I agree with discussion comment from Macgruder 10:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC). I just changed the name as MacGruder suggested and someone changed it back without leaving a trace for me to see who did it. I am trying again.) (thank)

(change visibility) 03:31, 21 May 2006 Elliott Small talk contribs block moved page Race and intelligence to Race and IQ Scores (Having been a member of MENSA, with no reason for a grudge against IQ tests, I have observed that the article is supported almost entirely by IQ data. There is almost no supporting information from the broader topic of intelligence itself. I suggest a new) (revert) (thank)

(change visibility) 06:07, 30 June 2005 Zen-master talk contribs block moved page Race and intelligence to Race and IQ over redirect (no consensus that IQ is an objective measure of intelligence) (thank) Doug Weller talk 14:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Nukemason2 seems nice. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
He was blocked for page move vandalism. There was a discussion in 2006[19] and JMF was involved in a recent discussion in March.[20]
I don't edit this article and am not going to give my opinion, just the evidence. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit War Warning

Oh my goodness, I have received an edit war warning - so, as advised I'm taking it talk. I'll keep this short and simple. Grayfell referencing your edit note, when did you explain to me, even once, how the cited sources support the assertion that there is a scientific consensus? The talk pages are all public and citable. Please show me where.Truth is KingTALK 17:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in humoring this game. You know exactly where, and if not, this talk page and its archive are already filled to the brim with tedious discussions of this exact issue. Asking for special treatment is tendentious. Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Grayfell (talk · contribs) is entirely correct here and in their recent comment above. I will, however, in the hope that it might put this dispute to bed, offer a few additional sources. First I'll direct Truth is King (talk · contribs) to a Harvard University blog post from 2017 entitled "How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century": [[21]] I'm suggesting this first not because it's the most reliable of sources but rather because I think it's highly explanatory of the current consensus among geneticists on "race". For a deep dive into the science by a respected geneticist (whose other work is discussed in the section Race_and_intelligence#Genetics_of_race_and_intelligence), see Alan Templeton, "Biological Races in Humans": [[22]]. This is of course not the only article I might cite to support the consensus view, but it's an especially well argued one by an authoritative source, and it's open-access so you can read it online free of charge. On the other end of the spectrum, even David Reich (among prominent geneticists, perhaps the most sympathetic to retaining some aspects of the "race" concept –– although it should be noted that his usage is entirely in line with Grayfell's statement here: [[23]], and with the findings of the recent RfC on race and intelligence linked above) refers to the dismissal of race by geneticists as a "consensus" three times in the following op-ed: [[24]] I hope that's informative. None of this is meant to imply that Grayfell didn't already answer your initial question directly here: [[25]] but rather to add some additional perspective on the issue for you or anyone else who may be curious. Generalrelative (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Generalrelative OK. I'm not going to take this any farther, for now. So, there is no need to respond - I guess in a way no need to even read this. But, just for the record I would like to address your points. But, first, I would like to thank you for at least going to the effort. Thank you.
First, the issue here is, is the following statement reliably sourced: "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." It seems to me that none of the cited references and none of the references you indicate support this statement, because it goes farther than anything said in any of those references. It is not just saying that there is a consensus against a genetic component. It says that there is a consensus that there is "no evidence" of a genetic component. That is an extremely strong statement, and goes beyond anything that even the Harvard blogpost states (which appears to go further to support the statement than any of the currently cited references). I would say, add that to the citations, but you are right - for numerous reasons it is not a reliable source. The Templeton article does not say it. None of the references say that there is a scientific consensus of "no evidence." If I am wrong, show me where, because I would like to know. If you cannot, then, again, no need to respond. David Reich, in the editorial refers to consensus in the past tense and states: "[I]t is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus ..." — certainly not an endorsement that there is currently a consensus. With respect to Grayfell's response in the other article: 1) that was referring to a different statement in a different article; 2) Neither of the two references he indicated stated that there was a consensus of any sort. Other references in the article did make a reasonable case for a consensus among American anthropologists.Truth is KingTALK 23:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I thank you for agreeing to respect the consensus here, and will just note that my last comment was meant to address the scientific consensus that racial classifications of humans are a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one. With regard to the scientific consensus that there is no evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence, I'd direct you to [[26]]: There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences. This is from Nature, and all of the more recent sources cited in the present article (I believe) only confirm it. I've recently added this reference to Heritability of IQ in order to satisfy the sticklers and may add it to the citation stack in this article too for the same reason. Generalrelative (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Generalrelative Thank you for taking this seriously, and I appreciate your effort in finding that article. Certainly the journal Nature is a reliable source. But there is a problem, and that is the age of the reference. In many fields, perhaps most, ten years is not that long a period of time. But in the field of human genetics and evolution, everything has changed in the past ten years with the introduction of far more sophisticated and powerful equipment and techniques. If you have not read Who We Are and How We Got Here, really and truly, consider reading it. Harvesting DNA from ancient skeletons and GWAS studies were introduced after that article was published. It is important. That may be why you had to go back so far to find a statement like that in a prominent journal.Truth is KingTALK 01:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
If you seriously believe that there is no longer a consensus that race is a social construct and no longer a consensus that there is no evidence showing that some races are genetically more intelligent than others, then the onus is on YOU to provide sources that show that fringe theories are no longer fringe. It is not our job to continually provide newer sources for this, any more than it would be to provide newer sources that abduction of humans by extraterrestrials is still a fringe view. NightHeron (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
+1 to what NightHeron has said. Further, I have indeed read Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here and will note that it in no way supports the arguments Truth Is King 24 has attempted to make here and at Scientific racism. See Who_We_Are_and_How_We_Got_Here#Reception for a balanced assessment of this book. Generalrelative (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@NightHeron:,@Generalrelative:Both of your statements, taken in context, are absurd. First, GR, all I've said is that statements made in these two articles are not supported by reliable sources. Of course, Reich did not address that issue. His book was not about Wikipedia articles. Other than arguments that it would be absurd to imagine would be addressed in his book, exactly what arguments have I made that Reich did not support? NH, the issue is, are the statements supported by reliable sources? If you had reliable sources in the first place, you might have a point. But not only is the Nature piece old, it is also an opinion piece. The author mentions a "growing consensus," indicating a condition that is developing, and not yet fully formed. And the author offers no evidence to support his statement. It is, at best, a casual observation that the author makes in the process of further argumentation on a different point. For those reasons, in addition to its age, it is not a reliable source. Finally, you have chosen something ridiculous as an example of a fringe belief. But the heliocentric planetary system, the microscopic organism theory of contagious disease, and the spread of malaria by mosquitoes were all once fringe theories, and are now universally accepted. Often, it is the development of better equipment and analytical techniques that leads to a once fringe belief becoming accepted. In the field of human evolution, there has been a revolution of better techniques over the past 10 years. It seems that there is some sense here that I have said a lot more than I really have. Disputing the support from reliable sources is not the same as disputing the truth of the statement that appears to be unsupported. It is important, in an encyclopedia, and particularly on a contentious issue, that every statement be supported by reliable sourcing. I would hope that we could all agree on that. And all I have done is to question the support from the cited sources. If I question that support, and an editor is able to find a reliable source to support that statement, I would hope that we would all agree that this would improve Wikipedia. And if the result is to change the statement, so that it is something that is supported by reliable sources, then that makes Wikipedia more authoritative, also a positive goal.Truth is KingTALK 15:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no interest in getting involved in a tedious argument involving a user who put "truth" in their nick, but I thought it worth observing that no one is obligated to personally satisfy you about the wrongness of your view; it's enough that there be a consensus. --JBL (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


Just a suggestion that editors might wish to develop a FAQ so they have a quick place to point editors who raise some frequently asked questions without feeling like they have to rehash it for every editor who comes along. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The need to include the possible reasons why some Sub Saharan African Originated Britons do better at school than white britons.

Hello recently i wrote why some Sub Saharan African groups or their children do relatively better at school performance than white britons. I include the source i used which is derived from Pew Research Center article on Sub Saharan African Immigrants being highly educated than native Americans and Britons and Portuguese. They used a data from 2015 Eurostat Survey for UK and rest of Europe and ACU for U.S. The data explains why Britons with Sub Saharn origin do better in educational attainments in UK than native whites and i used it to do so, however my edit was reverted and no longer appears on the article. I ask you (Wikipedia editors who did not approve of my contributions) to think about it because it has no unsourced claims and my reasoning makes sense. The need to include the better performance of Black Africans in UK in that article is after all useless because it does not represent aggregated performance based on educational attainment of their parents(who are more likely to have college degree). Please reveiw my contributions. Thank you! Abedidos (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Abedidos: (As I wrote on my personal page) Hello. The problems with your addition were explained in my edit note (and in that of User:Snowded). As explained, the conclusion you are trying to draw is not explicit in the source. Drawing your own conclusions not explicit in a source is WP:OR and combining two or more sourcesfor a conclusion is WP:Synthesis. Both are against Wikipedia policies. Your added comment seems to fall under both of these categories; i.e. it is a personal analysis (your own opinion about the "reason") that is not explicitly supported by the source(s). Said opinion is irrelevant unless you can find a reliable source (WP:RS) that explicitly states it. Also, as mentioned, those whose scores are discussed are not the adult African immigrants themselves (who may or may not be disporportionately educated) but their UK-raised/born offspring. Thus for this reason also, your addition seems to lack relevance and does not seem appropriate in this context.Skllagyook (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Concur -----Snowded TALK 07:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. This seems like a case where a new user is simply unaware that WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is not permitted. Thanks for explaining so clearly how the policy applies in this context, Skllagyook. Generalrelative (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sentence in clear violation of WP:OR

I reverted the following sentence, which should not have been restored: Because tests of human intelligence are approximately normally distributed, an average difference of 1.1 standard deviations can be equivalently expressed as stating that around 86% of the test-takers identifying themselves as white scored higher than the average score of the test-takers identifying themselves as black. In the first place, "can be equivalently expressed" is false. A comparison between two distributions implies many statements about the data, of which the editor chose one. No such statement is "equivalent" to the relative appearance of the distributions. The editor might be of the opinion that the statement about the 86% is the best way to summarize the data, but none of the sources cited say that. How one chooses to summarize the data is often controversial, and unsourced statements of this sort violate WP:V and WP:OR.

In addition, calling the tests "tests of human intelligence" in wikivoice violates WP:NPOV, because many writers have raised serious doubts about whether whatever the tests measure should be called human intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd—and, if true, means referring to IQ tests as "intelligence tests", as is done throughout the article, also violates NPOV. Indeed, just the phrase "IQ test" would be a violation. Intelligence tests are designed to quantify human intelligence—whether they're accurate, or even whether "intelligence" is a definable and measurable quality, are different issues. There is a real debate about the existence of "g", but no one is twisting themselves into logical and rhetorical knots trying to censor the phrase "g-loaded tests". Ditto with "race" and the extent to which it exists and can be validly measured. But this kind of blatant WP:POV editing and WP:CENS does our encyclopedia a grave disservice. Elle Kpyros (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The original wording is correct, "a difference of 1.1 standard deviations" is mathematically equivalent to "86% of the test-takers identifying ...as black". The only assumption necessary for this to be the case is that IQ is normally distributed, which is not contentious. Such a trivial equivalence statement does not require a source - the only controversy here stems from the implications of the statement, and this reversion only serves to force the socially acceptable POV that pervades this article and much of wikipedia regarding racially sensitive topics. Disservice indeed. LikelyLory (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please be civil; your angry tone and accusations of censorship are inappropriate. You're missing the point. The term "intelligence tests" is a commonly used synonym for IQ tests, whether or not they measure intelligence. But calling them "tests of human intelligence" is expressing an opinion in wikivoice that is controversial. There are many examples where a change in wording converts a common term to something that's controversial or simply wrong. The MacArthur Fellowship Program is popularly called the "genius grants", but calling them "awards made to geniuses" in wikivoice would be stating a questionable opinion, since most of the awardees, admirable though they may be, are not what most people mean by "genius". The common term for the US baseball championship is the "World Series", but calling the winning team the "champion of the world" in wikivoice would violate WP:Global, since the US and one Canadian team are not the world. NightHeron (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the way NightHeron has characterized the operative distinction here. This may seem like a subtle point in the abstract, but the illustrations (genius grants, World Series) make clear that such changes in wording can create semantic pitfalls in certain contexts. It's also important for us to remember that this is a contentious topic, so extra care to assume good faith here on the Talk page is warranted. Generalrelative (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron is right on this issue. We should also refrain from calling IQ tests "intelligence tests" or "test of intelligence", as it is contentious if they measure intelligence and to what extent they do. We cannot be too neutral in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Your examples do not support your conclusion. "Genius grants" are not explicitly designed to measure for and select geniuses, that synonym is effectively a colloquialism. The "World Series" does not actually measure beyond the border of the US. In contrast we have the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) which is explicitly designed as a rigorous metric for intelligence - IQ tests are by definition "tests of human intelligence". That you disagree with how accurate or valid IQ tests are does not remove them from the category of "tests of human intelligence" - especially considering that their general validity is supported by a wealth rigorous, consistent circumstantial and empirical evidence. LikelyLory (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The presumption of "general validity" here is actually false. See the carefully balanced discussion at Intelligence quotient#Validity as a measure of intelligence, in particular the statement by Wayne Weiten: IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable. Note that this statement is WP:RS/WP:TERTIARY because it is from a recent, respected[[27]] textbook, not an individual study, and therefore can be taken as representative of the field. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
For an example of the kind of WP:PRIMARY research that supports this overview, see e.g. [[28]]: Historically, research into the biological basis of intelligence has been limited by a circular logic regarding the definition of what exactly intelligence is. More specifically, general intelligence may sensibly be defined as the factor or factors that contribute to an individual’s ability to perform across a broad range of cognitive tasks. In practice, however, intelligence is typically defined as “g,” which in turn is defined as the measure taken by classical pen and paper IQ tests such as Raven’s matrices (Raven, 1938) or the Cattell Culture Fair (Cattell, 1949). If a more diverse set of paradigms are applied and, as a consequence, a more diverse set of first-order components are derived, the conventional approach is to run a second-order factor analysis in order to generate a higher-order component. In order for the battery to be considered a good measure of general intelligence, this higher-order component should correlate with “g” as measured by a classical IQ test. The results presented here suggest that such higher-order constructs should be used with caution. On the one hand, a higher-order component may be used to generate a more interpretable first-order factor solution, for example, when cognitive tasks load heavily on multiple components. On the other hand, the basis of the higher-order component is ambiguous and may be accounted for by cognitive tasks corecruiting multiple functionally dissociable brain networks. Consequently, to interpret a higher-order component as representing a dominant unitary factor is misleading. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Someone is getting rid of my contributions just because he thinks the author i referenced to is controversial. The information i used has been used in many publications and websites. You can not disregard information based on your personal oppinions. This is what i added "Globaly IQ scores range from average of 70 in sub saharan African Countries to approximately 110 average of IQ score in East Asian countries of Singapore, China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. [1] Most Western European Countries and The USA, Canada and Australia have an IQ score of approximately 100.[1]" I will be reversing the changes until someone clarifies to me that wikipedia policy block controversial sources. IQ and Race itself is controversial. Abedidos (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ a b Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, Richard and Tatu (11/28/2020). "IQ and Global Inequality" (PDF). Wordpress.com. Retrieved 11/28/2020. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
There is no edit war at the moment but if you insert those changes again without agreement you will get a warning for edit warring and that can lead to a block. Lynn is a highly controversial figure and without more third party citations that material has no place here. -----Snowded TALK 18:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Further, these figures are not just controversial, they are unscientifically sourced. See, e.g. the 2020 European Human Behavior and Evolution Association statement that these figures are fundamentally unsound and unreliable.[[29]] The WP article where these figures are discussed, Nations and intelligence quotient, still needs a ton of work to eliminate lingering WP:PROFRINGE, but that is no reason to allow PROFRINGE to creep back into this article. Generalrelative (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


@Abedidos: (I concur with the replies of the two editors above.) And I'm afraid what may be cited on websites and other publications is not relevant here. On Wikipedia there are policies governing the inclusion and use of sources. The deletion is not based on my personal opinions, but on Wikipedia policies. The findings of Richard Lynn, as mentioned, are considered highly controversial-dubious and disputed (see the article on him linked here above). Your addition gives undue prominence to controversial material that is not broadly accepted, and considered by many to be WP:FRINGE (and the work of Lynn was determined to be fringe in this Wikipedia RFC discussion, see here: [[30]] . For more information, please see WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MAINSTREAM. Skllagyook (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Genuine question: if these figures are controversial in the field, doesn't that suggest that they are notable and likely deserve mention in the article (along with appropriate context and criticism, of course)?
Anyways, here is one study that attempts a more precise and systematic review of the the literature than Lynn's work, with respect to sub-Saharan Africans specifically. Does anyone have institutional access to read the full report? One snippet says: Our review of the literature on the performance of Africans on the Raven's tests showed that the average IQ of Africans on the Raven's tests is lower than the average IQ in western countries. However, the average IQ of Africans is not as low as Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy (2008) maintained. Can we agree at least on this study's claim that the average IQ of Africans is lower than the average IQ in western countries? That seems uncontroversial, as I haven't seen any studies that show otherwise. And of course we should also take care to include the relevant context and criticism about the uncertain reliability of IQ tests in other countries due to cultural factors, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue is WP:FRINGE, not notability. Of course scientific racism is notable, and we have a long article on it. So is creationism, climate change denial, and alien abduction. NightHeron (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
If we are to take them at face value, how are these geographic comparisons relevant to the topic of "Race and intelligence"? –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that geography is not the same as race. In particular, geography is physical reality and race is a social construct. However, casting aspersions on the continent of Africa is a form of racism. NightHeron (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
1. The article already contains geographical comparisons (standardized test scores of UK students with different African countries of origin). So in terms of consistency, I don't see how this would be grounds to object to including this data.
2. Geographical differences have long been analyzed in connection with race and intelligence, with the Flynn Effect likely being the most prominent example. This makes sense, because geographical differences can have important implications in the debate surrounding the causes of racial differences in intelligence tests. Stonkaments (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

New Source

Hello,

Russell Warne's new book [31], published in October by Cambridge University Press, discusses race and intelligence in a few chapters. This book describes a lot of new research about race and intelligence that hadn't previously been covered in secondary sources. It was previously established at the RS noticeboard [32] that Cambridge University Press is generally a reliable publisher when covering this topic, and Warne's book is listed [33] by Cambridge as one of their top 15 books of 2020.

This book seems to be a high quality secondary source that gives an up-to-date overview of this article's topic. Can we use it to update this article?

Gardenofaleph (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This may be an acceptable WP:SECONDARY source but individual claims will need to be evaluated relative to overall scientific consensus. Simply being on CUP's "top books" list is not, I would argue, especially significant. See e.g. this other book from the same list [[34]] which questions the existence of black holes and dark matter, along with the theory of the big bang, all of which have general support from mainstream physicists. It seems to me that this list is curated toward potential best-sellers, and being controversial (i.e. rather than mainstream) is a selling point. Generalrelative (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: The book (in the chapter on racial differences, toward the end) also cites fringe sources such as Fuerst and Emil Kierkegard among others, which also seems somewhat suspicious. Skllagyook (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Judging from the blurb on Amazon and from his membership in the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, Warne seems to promote fringe views. In fact, he seems to take pride in contradicting what scholarly consensus and mainstream media are saying. As Generalrelative says, the fact that a book is published by a respectable publisher does not mean that it's a reliable source. Each source has to be evaluated on its own merits, since there are quite a few fringe books published by leading publishers. It's telling that in Warne's blurb he claims that it's untrue that preschool can improve a child's cognitive ability. This is the fringe view that was famously expounded by Arthur Jensen in his 1969 article attacking preschool programs targeted at children of the poor and racial minorities. NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Right. It may be worth emphasizing that preschool improving cognitive ability is very robustly demonstrated. See e.g. [[35]], [[36]], [[37]], [[38]] and [[39]]. Characterizing this fact as a "myth" is not a good sign. Generalrelative (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Generalrelative, that part of the Amazon blurb is somewhat misleading. The book's actual chapter on social interventions such as preschool doesn't dispute that these can raise IQ. What it argues is that the claims some people have made about these interventions, such as that they can cause a permanent increase of IQ 30 points, are greatly exaggerated.
NightHeron, please explain something to me. Calling an idea "fringe" is another way of saying that major secondary sources don't take the idea seriously. But a few months ago you removed a lot of material from this article that was cited to Earl Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence, which was also published by Cambridge University Press, with the justification that this material in Hunt's book is "fringe" as well.
When the topic is presented a certain way by major secondary sources, how can your argument be a valid reason for excluding material from those sources? Determinations about what is or isn't "fringe" are supposed to be based on how the topic is presented in secondary sources, so using that as justification to remove or exclude content from those sources seems like a contradiction. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it (since I'm unlikely to purchase this book myself), but do note that the blurb on CUP's own site says the same thing: [[40]] Seems they're trying to play up the controversy –– and that in the chapter itself Warne is going after a straw man argument.
Regarding Hunt, I can't speak for NightHeron but I read the book in question and found that in several instances its arguments had been mischaracterized in this and related articles. Hunt does sometimes express opinions that would be considered fringe here, and these do not belong on Wikipedia, but he is always (or at least generally) careful to delineate these opinions from his reportage of the state of scientific understanding. That's why, I would argue, he can be considered RS for reportage. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The views that Warne and like-minded writers promote about race and intelligence were discussed at great length by roughly 50 editors, who reached a consensus about the fringe nature of claims that some races are genetically superior or inferior in intelligence to others, see [41]. Note that there might be secondary sources published by reputable publishers that advance a certain POV, but that doesn't disprove the fringe nature of the POV. For example, Elsevier publishes a secondary source [42] promoting homeopathy, which also conflicts with mainstream science and therefore is regarded as fringe on Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC mentioned above does establish that books published by Cambridge University Press are considered reliable sources, but it also speaks to the fact that not all reliable sources (even those published by experts in the field) represent the mainstream viewpoint. Is there evidence that Warne's views on race and intelligence satisfy our due weight requirements? –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the number of high-quality secondary sources we allegedly have to exclude, based on the "fringe" label, suggests that the decision to exclude these sources is a mistake. Looking only at books published by Cambridge University Press, since that has been established as a reliable publisher, there are at least three such sources: Warne's book, Rindermann's Cognitive Capitalism, and some of the material in Hunt's textbook. Undue weight would be a valid argument if there were only one such source that's contradicted by all the others, but there must be a some quantity of coverage of the viewpoint in secondary sources where this stops being a good argument. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a basic logical fallacy at work here. I'll wager that most of the people who "study" Bigfoot believe in the existence of Bigfoot. Serious zoologists don't often take the time to debunk the existence of Bigfoot because that's not seriously in question. So even if most of the books written by "Bigfoot experts" claim that it is real, this will not result in an article written as though Bigfoot were real. Similarly, since few serious geneticists believe that genetic differences in cognitive capacity between human population groups are likely to exist (and none believes that evidence for such differences currently exists), they don't spend a lot of time debunking the claims of psychometricians who do. Hunt is circumspect about this; Rindermann is not. I'm not sure what Warne is. The point is that Wikipedia needs to report the state of actual scientific understanding, regardless of what an individual publisher puts out. Generalrelative (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
With regard to CUP, you might also take a look at the Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (2011), particularly its chapter 15: "Race and Intelligence", which you can preview here: [[43]] There's nothing there that seems WP:FRINGE to me, or that would be out of place in the pages of Nature or Science –– very much unlike the kinds of things Rindermann publishes. Generalrelative (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, Cambridge University Press also published a chapter about international IQ differences by Richard Lynn in The Nature of Human Intelligence. Lynn's chapter in that book is chapter 16. But I assume you would not allow that chapter to be cited either, even though this book is another high-quality secondary source.
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Are you arguing that our judgement as Wikipedia editors about "the state of scientific understanding" should overrule the balance of viewpoints that actually exists about this topic in reliable sources? It sounds like that is what you're arguing, especially now that you're removing all of the reliable sources that support one viewpoint from the Nations and intelligence article. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
1) Yes.
2) Certainly not. To get an idea of the state of scientific understanding, I'd suggest running a 20-year search of "race and intelligence" at Nature and Science. You will find plenty of articles stating things like "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races" ([44]) and "Race is therefore not a particularly useful category to use when searching for the genetics of biological traits or even medical vulnerabilities, despite widespread assumptions" ([45]; see also [46], [47] and [48]). You will find none supporting a genetic connection between race and intelligence. The most you will find is a couple which entertain the possibility that connections between cognitive abilities and race-like genetic clusters may be discovered in the future (see [49] and [50]). Even where the ethics of researching links between race and intelligence are defended ([51]), it is clearly stated that "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences." Generalrelative (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the extensive discussion of this issue that I cited earlier in this thread ([52]), in which about 50 Wikipedia editors participated and multiple reliable sources were examined for scientific consensus. The RfC was closed with a decision that the POV that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is a fringe view that has to be treated on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Lynn, Rindermann and several of the other promoters of this fringe view were discussed. Lynn, in particular, through his ties to Mankind Quarterly and similar enterprises, has long been known as an advocate for white supremacist views. His papers do not comply with WP:RS, irrespective of the publisher. You're free to disagree, but your personal opinion does not trump consensus of editors, and editors are not obliged to relitigate this issue for your benefit. NightHeron (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. At this point it is unnecessary to relitigate these issues. I hope that the OP will be satisfied with the good faith efforts of editors who have engaged with them here and accept the existing consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy. Generalrelative (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is educational attainment and Academic performance used as indicators of IQ score in the article which is about Intelligence and race? As far as i know Intelligence is measured through IQ tests not accademical tests. Abedidos (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit Dispute

In the section "Group Differences" in IQ scores, the performance of Black African pupils in educational attainment in the UK is mentioned as it is an indicator of Intelligence. The page as the title implies is about the measure of intelligence which is only measured by IQ tests and not educational attainment or other Standardized tests aimed at dictating the qualifications of students academically, nevertheless the Academic performance of Black African pupils are mentioned and compared with white british pupils in an article which deals about Intelligence(which is measured using IQ tests). In the 2nd paragraph of the section" Group Differences" the author also mentions the Academic performance of Indian, Bangladeshi, Afghan, And Pakistani pupils as a comparison. I wanted to add some other Racial Groups to the paragraph and i did but since have been undid because the editor thinks that it is unrelated to the paragraph. If it is unrelated to the paragraph why are other racial groups mentioned and used as comparison then? Why cherry pick some racial groups and leave others? I dont get it. What can be done and can anybody explain to me the reason behind it? And also why the whole section "Group Differences" only focuses on black and white differences of IQ score? Abedidos (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. You make a good point that the sentence in parentheses about South Asian scores is also irrelevant to the point of the paragraph, and so I removed it. I hope other editors agree. The paragraph in question provides balance to the first paragraph of the section, which talks about standardized test performance among US racial and ethnic groups, in which African American scores on average are below other groups. It's very relevant to explain that the reverse happens in the UK, both in terms of standardized test scores and other measures of academic performance. NightHeron (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid IQ testing is not the same as other academic standardized tests. We do have an IQ difference in UK in which Black Africans score lower than whites in General. The standardized tests you mentioned are not the same because in the first paragraph it is about IQ testing not academic testing which is the case in the second paragraph.I think you agree with me that the standardized tests in UK are governmental tests aimed at testing the qualifications of students in academic knowledge. An IQ test score still shows a difference in UK where black Africans score lower. Academical performance and Intelligence Quotient are very different. Abedidos (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not true. Black Africans score higher in UK tests than whites, especially white boys. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In the first paragraph we also need to remove the mention of SAT scores because SAT scores are not necessarily IQ test. An IQ test is the only way so far in knowing the IQ of a particular person. Abedidos (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abedidos: I agree with User:NightHeron. Standardized tests such as the GCSE and the SATs are both highly correlated with IQ and (like IQ) are considered/argued to be related to intelligence, and are different from the kinds of test ordinarily given as part of school classes (the SAT was originally based on an IQ test and meant to test reasoning as well as information), thus it is relevant (though the true connection of IQ itself with intelligence is also debated). The subject of the article is "Race and Intelligence" not "Race and IQ score", thus other related tests putatively connected to intelligence (and highly correlated to IQ) are also relevant (and academic performance also, to a somewhat lesser extent though substantially, is IQ correlated and intelligence-correlated). In the UK, different African groups have different average performances (as the test scores show) with some being above the average and some not (and as far as I know, there is no IQ data broken down for the specific African groups in the UK), and/but group (and individual) GCCE performance correlates with IQ performance in the same age range. Skllagyook (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
SAT scores record performance in Standard Attainment Tests. IQ scores record performance in IQ tests. Both are imperfect proxies for intelligence in western societies. SATS (and GCSEs) are also a good proxy for (lack of) engagement with "the system". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: I very much agree. The ability of both kinds of tests to measure intelligence is imperfect and limited. But both have either some connection and/or some claimed connection to intelligence, and so are relevant here. Skllagyook (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course they should be mentioned, provided that the mention comes with a sanity warning (which the article generally does, tbf). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

i am sorry but GCSE is not an Intelligence test whatsoever. SAT test is different from that of GCSE. "The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is an academic qualification in a particular subject, taken in England, Wales,[1] and Northern Ireland. State schools in Scotland use the Scottish Qualifications Certificate instead". It is an exam for academical purposes. I know there are some corelations between SAT scores and IQ scores as we all expect students with Higher IQ are more likely to score High SAT scores as well. The paragraph which mentions about Black Africans in UK performing better on academic attainment is not related to intelligence test whatsoever. Can you cite me a source if any that proves GCSE can prdict intelligence? GCSE exams in UK test an acquired knowledge, while an IQ test measures your abilty to solve problems unknown to you or with no previous preparation prior to taking the test. Dear Wikipedia editors can GCSE exams which test your aquired knowledge on Mathematics, Reading and Writing a good prediction of Intelligence as Skllagyook claims. One thing the paragraph did not even mention is that a child or student with college educated parents is more likely to perform better in school tests. Black African immigrants have higher educational attainments in UK specially Nigerians and Ghanaians. Also in the 1st paragraph of section" group differences" SAT score is used as a sign of intelligence is misleading since the SAT test is not aimed at testing or measuring Aquired knowledge. Abedidos (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abedidos: Yes, the GCSE (which, like the SAT, is an achievement test) correlates with measured IQ (e.g. the CAT IQ test) as well as with the proposed "g factor" component of IQ. The Maths and English GCSE in particular has a high correlation to “g” from an IQ test at about .7-.8 (.67 English, .77 Math; page: 16, table: 2) not very different from the SAT.
See:
"Intelligence and Educational Achievement" By Ian Deary et al.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-educational-achievement.pdf
See the section below entitled "Academic achievement"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
From that section (some is also found in Deary et al.):
"Achievement test scores are more highly correlated with IQ than school grades. This may be because grades are more influenced by the teacher's idiosyncratic perceptions of the student.[70] In a longitudinal English study, g scores measured at age 11 correlated with all the 25 subject tests of the national GCSE examination taken at age 16. The correlations ranged from .77 for the mathematics test to .42 for the art test. The correlation between g and a general educational factor computed from the GCSE tests was .81. Research suggests that the SAT, widely used in college admissions, is primarily a measure of g. A correlation of .82 has been found between g scores computed from an IQ test battery and SAT scores."
And even school grades (which are also discussed at the page linked above) are relevant to the subject of intelligence (and have a still significant correlation to IQ though less than achievement tests do). As mentioned, the subject of the article pertains to "intelligence" not exclusively to IQ (which, as User:John Maynard Friedman pointed out, is itself also an imperfect measure of intelligence, and whose true relationship to intelligence is debated). Skllagyook (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well do you guys accept CAT tests? If so they show a different story. There is a consensus that highly educated people tend to highyly intelligent, in part because people with high IQs are more likely to go further with their academical education than people with low IQs. However using academical test scores is not a convenient way to predict intelligence. I will publish CAT scores broken down by race. Using CAT makes sense. Abedidos (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know we have CAT test scores available for ethnic groups in UK. Abedidos (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


@Abedidos: Please WP:INDENT. Regarding the CAT, as far as I know, it/the data does not distinguish between different African ethnic groups (who have different average performances) nor am I aware of group CAT data for the age 16 age range (when the GCSE Key Stage 4 is) nor of recent data. Also, depending on the age group it concerns, it can be somewhat misleading, since in some groups of UK-born minorities, test performance improves with age, from earlier childood onward (perhaps as certain minority groups become more culturally acclimated.
The GCSE key stage 4 scores are taken around the age of sixteen and show improvement for some groups over both their CAT and GCSE scores at age 11 and earlier. The CAT sores given from the younger age group even more closely match Group performances at the same age GCSE evaluation stage (Key stage 2). Thus, for example, Pakistani and (overall) black African (for instance) scores rise from their closely correlated age 11 CAT/key stage 2 levels to their respective higher Ks 4 levels seen.
See:
"Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England: Extension Report on Performance in Public Examinations at Age 16"
by Dr Steve Strand
https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7916/1/DCSF-RR029.pdf
From the source:
“Some gaps change very little. For example the relative gap associated with social class, mother’s educational qualifications and entitlement to a FSM did not change substantially over the three time points. Other gaps did show substantial change. For example the gender gap increases significantly, from less than 0.07 SD at KS2 to 0.23 SD by the end of KS4, with the largest shift occurring between KS3 and KS4. The gaps for some ethnic groups decrease substantially, for example Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black African mean scores were significantly below the White British mean at KS2 and KS3 but these gaps narrowed to less than 0.1 SD by the end of KS4, again with the big change happening during KS4.”(page 9) Skllagyook (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

By the logic you are using, using GCSE is also misleading. That is why we started this discussion in the first place. Both can be misleading, in fact all Intelligence measures are misleading. There is no need to chery pick some source and discard the other even if it is reliable. Abedidos (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think; therefore, I am. Not therefore I am. Also, by the way, I think.

Surely, if we're making a conclusion based on an implicit assumption, we must state the assumption first? The sentence "there is no scientific evidence that the average IQ scores of different racial or ethnic population groups can be attributed to any claimed genetic differences between those groups" implicitly assumes that mean IQ scores differ between various ethnic groups, and then goes on to explain that there is no scientific evidence that these differences are attributable to genetics. However, without having stated this implicit assumption first, the explanation looks completely irrelevant and out of place: why would you have to explain something that you haven't even started talking about? It's a bit like when somebody asks you "how is your project going?" and you reply with "look, don't worry about John, he is okay". Surely it would make more sense to reply with something like "even though John got injured today, the injury isn't that serious, so our project is going just fine"?

Also, just a note to @Generalrelative:: why did you revert all of my and NightHeron's edits, which included simple copyedits, instead of just the edit that you didn't agree with? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that the wording "most but not all" that you put in did need to be reverted. In discourse about intelligence differences the debate is often framed as nature vs nurture, that is, the causes of intelligence differences (between individuals or groups) are either environmental or genetic. So "most but not all" environmental (in reference to groups) would imply that some of it is genetic, and there's no evidence for that, as stated in the lead. In other words, saying that the differences are caused by environmental factors (even though not all the environmental influences are known or well understood) is equivalent to saying that they're not genetic.
Concerning your change in the first paragraph of the lead, other than my revision of the wording I didn't see anything wrong with it. I don't think it logically "needs" to be there, but I think it's probably better than the current text. The current version (the version before your change) has a logical problem in that the words "In particular" at the beginning suggest a close relation to the preceding text that concerns the disputed claim about IQ being a measure of intelligence. But even if someone believes that IQ is a measure of intelligence, it does not follow that group differences have anything to do with genetics; these are two completely separate issues. Another reason why I don't see anything wrong with your suggested addition to that sentence is that the following paragraph starts by describing the early measuring of group differences in IQ scores. NightHeron (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: I'll be happy to defer to your judgment regarding the first paragraph. You're right that the recent addition certainly doesn't need to be here (the analogy to the Cogito is logically dubious, and the "don't worry about John" statement is even more so), but if you think the current version needs work I'm open to that. Perhaps though we can add more circumspect phrasing surrounding the introduction of group-level IQ score differences in the spirit of the Nature editorial board statement quoted in the thread above: "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races". [53]
@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: In addition to what NightHeron mentioned about your addition of "most but not all" above, which was spot-on, you also added the word "absolute" to the phrase "myths of black intellectual inferiority" so that it read "myths of absolute black intellectual inferiority". This strikes me as WP:WEASEL wording suggesting that some relative form of black intellectual inferiority is anything other than a myth. Your only other edits appear to have been fixing an M-dash, which I have reinstated (I admit that I missed this when reverting you), and your addition of "in turn," in place of "and", which did not seem especially helpful but which I've reinstated in the interest of compromise. Generalrelative (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: Actually, my wording was "most to all", which allows for the possibility that no genetic factors are at play here. It also improves on the accuracy of the current wording, which attempts to rule out the possibility that some genetic factors are at play ─ something for which there is likewise no evidence.
@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: I apologize for my misreading. My only excuse (admittedly not a good one) is that I (mis)read it the way many readers would be likely to, that is, as suggesting strongly that there is probably a genetic component. The present wording is: Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap. This is correct. Available evidence points exclusively to environmental factors, not to genetic ones. You're right in the sense that you can't usually prove a negative. Scientists haven't proven that Bigfoot does not exist, although the available evidence is that he doesn't. NightHeron (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: That's fine, but I still don't think the current wording is accurate. You're right that you can't usually prove a negative, but the difference between Bigfoot and genetic influence on intelligence is that genetics are very poorly understood; for example, there isn't a single gene that has been confirmed to be responsible for intelligence. Therefore, there simply can't possibly be any evidence for any genetic theory concerning intelligence simply because the science and the technology aren't there yet. For example, evidence for the RNA world hypothesis is insufficient, and evidence for string theory is nonexistent. Does that mean the scientific consensus is that both theories are false? No. It just means that there isn't enough evidence for either just yet. Similarly, the fact that there is growing evidence for some alternative theories does not mean there is growing evidence that either theory is false ─ it could well be that both are correct and there is some theory which unifies both, that both are false, or that both are only partially correct.
To conclude, I think saying that "there is growing evidence that genetic factors do not explain the racial IQ gap" is inaccurate. The American Psychological Association agrees, as they report that there is "no conclusive explanation for the observed differences between average IQ scores of racial groups". In light of this, I suggest we go with my edit and err on the side of making as few controversial claims as possible. What do you say? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
That report was published in 1996. A lot has changed since then, especially in our understanding of population genetics. For a very cogent and accessible explanation of why the genetic explanation for racial IQ differences is implausible (written by an actual geneticist and neuroscientist), see [54]. Generalrelative (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I still think we'd need some very conclusive sources to rule out a genetic influence on group differences in intelligence, as it's a pretty significant claim. I found the article that you have linked less than convincing: the fact that intelligence is largely hereditary proves that it can be passed down the generations and hence be selected for, even if the selection is inefficient due to high rates of mutation, and that it affects other traits only means its selection is reduced by default, but that doesn't rule out that in societies which put a higher emphasis on areas which require intelligence (such as, for example, Jews, who have historically gave special value to education) the selection is amplified. Perhaps I'm not versed enough in evolution, but to me it doesn't make intuitive sense. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Science is often counterintuitive like that. See again where the author states: "We need to get away from thinking about intelligence as if it were a trait like milk yield in a herd of cattle, controlled by a small, persistent and dedicated bunch of genetic variants that can be selectively bred into animals from one generation to the next. It is quite the opposite – thousands of variants affect intelligence, they are constantly changing, and they affect other traits. It is not impossible for natural selection to produce populations with differences in intelligence, but these factors make it highly unlikely. To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What’s more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change. Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible." Even the supposed pressure on the Jewish people to become extra intelligent cannot be described as "enormous" and certainly not "persistent over tens of thousands of years". Generalrelative (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: Just because much in genetics is not known, that doesn't mean that there hasn't been considerable work done looking for genetic causes of many things. I believe there's scientific evidence for genetic influence in variation between individuals for certain types of mental illness, for example. There has also been work claiming to establish genetic influence on differences in intelligence between individuals. This work is controversial, but I believe that most experts think there's some genetic role in individual variation. In contrast, the search for a genetic basis for group differences in IQ, like the search for Bigfoot, has led to nothing but weird theories by fringe people, nothing but pseudoscience and racialist ideology. The present wording of the last sentence in the paragraph reflects the situation correctly. NightHeron (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: Once again, NightHeron's comments are based on a misreading of my edit. With that out of the way, I added the adjective "absolute" because the most common form of the "black intellectual inferiority" hypothesis is that the average intelligence of black people is lower than that of white people, and hence isn't a "counterexample" to it. I did not suggest that this most common form of the hypothesis isn't a myth ─ I simply clarified that examples of intelligent black people do not disprove it. Finally, regarding my analogies, care to explain in what way they're dubious? The article introduces a conclusion (that differences in IQ scores don't necessarily have a genetic explanation) partially based on an assumption (that differences in IQ scores exist) without first stating said assumption, just as if "therefore, I am" was stated before "I think" and as if "John is okay" was said before explaining why John is relevant to the discussion. As far as I'm concerned, all of this is just basic logic. Am I wrong? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: FYI I'd be happy to continue the discussion of logical entailment on my user talk page (or yours, just ping me), but since it's no longer germane to an ongoing content dispute we should drop it here. Thanks for being a thoughtful collaborator. Generalrelative (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: I agree, I don't think this discussion bears any value any longer. Your gratitude is appreciated and reciprocated! Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: I'm not sure about the best way to word the last sentence in the first paragraph. Right now it reads In particular, there is no scientific evidence that the average IQ scores of different racial or ethnic population groups can be attributed to any claimed genetic differences between those groups. As I mentioned, "In particular" doesn't belong. Also, "average IQ scores" should be "differences between average IQ scores". Since the main body discusses history a fair amount, perhaps the sentence could say something along the lines of: "Despite a long history of ill-founded claims to the contrary, there is no scientific evidence that the differences between average IQ scores...". That wording is a bit awkward because of the double negative ("to the contrary [of there being] no scientific evidence"). NightHeron (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: Good points, great suggestion. I was just working on a wholesale revision of the first paragraph, since upon reflection I see a number of problems with it. Here's what I came up with:
Discussions of race and intelligence, specifically claims of differences in intelligence along racial lines, have appeared in both popular science and academic research since the modern concept of race was first introduced. With the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century, differences in average test performance between racial groups became apparent, though these differences have steadily decreased over time. Further complicating the issue, modern scholarship regards race as a social construct rather than a biological reality, and intelligence has no agreed-upon definition. The validity of IQ tests as a metric for human intelligence is itself disputed. Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics do not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups, and that observed difference are therefore environmental in origin.
Happy to discuss further! Generalrelative (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Imo, this is the best version, bar a few insignificant imperfections. My main issues are:
  • "became apparent" I don't like this because it implies that differences in IQ scores constitue some sort of fundamental truth which was recently uncovered, while in reality it is largely a social phenomenon idiosyncratic to the time. I prefer "were observed".
  • "though these differences have steadily decreased over time" The differences between some racial groups, such as Black and White, have been decreasing; however, I'm not sure that is the case for all racial groups, e.g. East Asian and White. Perhaps we should just leave this one out. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Great, I'll work on incorporating your points and put this into the article. Feel free to fix any further imperfections you see, and if need be someone can revert and we'll continue the discussion here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I like your rewrite a lot. I think the objection to "though these differences have steadily decreased over time" can be addressed by inserting "most of" before "these differences". The main body (in the section on the Flynn effect) discusses this in the case of black-white differences. Also, in the section on early IQ testing, it's mentioned that test results in the early 20th century favored Nordic Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans. Those differences have presumably decreased (or disappeared), although I don't know a citation for that. NightHeron (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm glad this was an occasion for us all to collaborate constructively. Your suggestion ("most of these differences...") would be less awkward than what I eventually settled on ("these differences have fluctuated and in some cases steadily decreased over time") so long as we can get consensus that it's accurate/verifiable. I was curious about your last point on decreasing group-level IQ differences between Northern and Southern Europeans so went looking for a reference. Here's one: [55] Generalrelative (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Your wording is more nuanced than mine, and that's good. I hadn't seen it before I suggested "most of". No need to change your wording. NightHeron (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hold on, what about your last sentence? Are you sure the consensus is that genetics definitively do not have any explanatory power with regards to differences in IQ test performance? I'm not sure that's entirely correct. The consensus appears to be that there is not enough evidence for genetics being a factor ─ not that genetics is definitively not a factor. I think we should change the last sentence to something closer to the previous version. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: Regarding "absolute" (which you've just put back in), no we don't have consensus on that. I dropped the issue because we had other things to talk about, but my objection still stands. I won't revert now because of the 1RR rule here, but I ask you to self-revert for the reasons I've mentioned above until there's consensus for its addition. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Regarding your question above, yes I am sure that this is the consensus. The most pertinent references I will point you to are the statement by the editorial board of Nature that "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races" (quoted above) [56] and the statement from another contributor to Nature that "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences." [57]. I could go on but this should be sufficient. Generalrelative (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your other recent edits, I don't think they're helpful. Your addition of "as a consequence" misstates the logical relation. The problems with IQ construct validity are more specific than this (as discussed at Intelligence quotient#Reliability and validity). And your addition of "and racial groups are regarded as biologically meaningless in the scientific community" is redundant given that we've already stated that "modern scholarship regards race as a social construct rather than a biological reality". Upon reflection, we could certainly change "scholarship" to "science" here though. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'm just wondering what your solution is to the "counterexample" situation, as the current statement is pretty obviously fallacious.
I interpret both of your sources as saying "IQ differences between populations are predominantly not attributable to genetics" (similarly to how, when I say, "the fact that a fly sat on the rock does not explain the fact that it fell down", even if the fly may have actually exerted some small amount of force on the rock in the right direction), and, frankly speaking, I don't see how we can make such definitive statements as that genetics has precisely 0 explanatory power when we have no idea how it even works. I suggest we approach such a controversial topic with caution and don't rush to conclusions.
I've read Intelligence quotient#Reliability and validity, but all of the issues with construct validity discussed in the section boil down to the fact that the definition of intelligence that IQ tests assume does not match up with many researchers' definitions of intelligence.
I don't view my comment on racial grouping being meaningless as redundant as it performs the same role as the statement that the validity of IQ testing is disputed: it summarises the consequences of the first two clauses of the sentence. Without it, we'd only be describing the consequences of one of the clauses, which is a bit clumsy in my opinion. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
1) The image caption reads "Autodidact and abolitionist Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) served as a high-profile counterexample to myths of black intellectual inferiority." There is no logical fallacy there. It's demonstrably the case that people described him this way. You are correct that one counterexample doesn't disprove the existence of average differences, but the myth in question here is not about average differences. It was a rule. The myth in question was that people of African heritage simply couldn't be as intelligent as Douglass manifestly was. This is shown by the fact that people at the time described him as a counterexample disproving the rule. See the sources cited in the first paragraph of Frederick Douglass. I recognize that you were gesturing at something like this by adding the word "absolute", but this did not add any clarity because the existing language was not at all obscure. And it had the (apparently unintended) consequence I described above, i.e. appearing to leave the door open gratuitously for some form of racial inferiority.
2) I don't follow your reasoning here. The first set of authors I quoted just above (the editorial board of Nature writing in 2017) state that attributing the "gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States ... to genetic differences between the races" is false. They don't say "probably false". Whether that means precisely zero genetic input or just effectively zero is not for us to decide or speculate upon because it is irrelevant when it comes to adjudicating what belongs in an encyclopedia (and I would argue if pressed that there is no epistemic criterion we could use to distinguish precisely zero from effectively zero in this instance anyway). The second set of authors (writing in 2009) make an equivalent statement, using language nearly identical to what I used in the sentence in question ("genes do not explain between-group differences" ––> "genetics do not explain differences in IQ"), and explicitly refer to "an emerging consensus". Since that time there has been nothing published in Science or Nature (or their subsidiary journals) that would challenge this consensus, or indicate that it has become any less secure. You can test this yourself by running a search for "race and intelligence" in their archives.
3) This does not appear to address the issue I pointed out, that "as a consequence" misstates the logical relation between the two statements because the one is not a logical consequence of the other. The problems with IQ construct validity could easily obtain even if intelligence were to have an agreed-upon definition. In my view, the first, more general statement on disagreement regarding the definition of intelligence serves to complicate the hypothesized connection between race and intelligence introduced in the article's opening sentence. The second statement on the validity of IQ tests complicates the article's second sentence which specifically concerns IQ testing.
4) I don't follow your reasoning here either, but perhaps that's because I don't see how you could hold the view that the specific statement about the validity of IQ tests is "a consequence" of the more general statement about disagreement regarding the definition of intelligence. Again, in my view this second statement about race seems redundant and therefore just adds clutter to the paragraph.
Note that points 3 and 4 are not a huge deal in my view, but I still wanted to make my perspective on them clear. Since we've already made such good progress together, I'm especially keen to leave this paragraph in as lucid a state as possible. Generalrelative (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to address this claim that "there has been nothing published in Science or Nature (or their subsidiary journals) that would challenge this consensus, or indicate that it has become any less secure", because Generalrelative has made this argument a few times, and in this discussion he used it to block new sources from being added to the article. Strictly speaking, this statement isn't true. This study, published in Nature communications in 2018, found that African, European and East Asian populations differed in the frequency of genetic variants affecting ten traits, one of which was educational attainment years. In genome-wide association studies, EAY is often used as a stand-in for cognitive ability, because it's easier to measure the years of education a person has completed than it is to give IQ tests to tens of thousands of people. If necessary I can provide sources about EAY being used as a proxy for cognitive ability; this is widely-understood and not controversial in behavior genetics research.
I'm not suggesting the Nature Communications paper should be cited in this article, because it does not directly mention intelligence or IQ, so to cite it in this article might be original synthesis. I'm mentioning this paper because the claim that Nature journals have never published anything to the contrary of those editorials is a false statement, and improvements to the article are being prevented based on this false premise.
I'll also mention that this practice of asserting one thing in editorials, while the contrary data are buried in a technical research paper, is a typical practice for Nature journals. As another example, this book review published in Nature called it a "myth" that there are differences between male and female human brains, even though Nature journals have also published several research papers documenting those differences (for example [58] and [59]).
When Nature and its subsidiary journals take one perspective in book reviews and editorials, but their research papers tell a different story, the question is which perspective should be presented in Wikipedia articles. The article Sex differences in psychology mostly reflects the actual research, rather than the editorials, and I'd argue this article should take a similar approach. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
1) You're right that inferring anything about cognitive ability from this study would be WP:SYNTH, and you only highlight why random editors can't be trusted to publish their own inferences on Wikipedia. You've presented no evidence at all support your claim that I am wrong about Nature and Science, or about the persistence of the consensus in question. Why even bother making such a comment?
2) Your implication that the editorial boards of the most prestigious scientific journals are somehow guilty of intellectual dishonesty (or being "out of touch"? or what?) strikes me as pretty bonkers. You're not going to have much luck convincing the community here to ignore what they have to say. If and when studies they publish conflict, we can still trust entities like the editorial board of Nature to serve as a WP:SECONDARY source to determine the overall state of knowledge.
3) FYI I haven't given any indication of my gender. I prefer they/them pronouns on this platform. Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Wait a minute. You're making a comment about "editorial boards of the most prestigious scientific journals", in the context of discussing an EDITORIAL published in Nature. Were you under the impression that book reviews and editorials published in academic journals are written or reviewed by the journal's editorial boards? Those usually are just reviewed by a journal's book review editor or its news editor, the same as would be the case in any other high-end magazine. This is why the distinction I was making between journalistic articles and peer-reviewed research papers is so important, especially when the two conflict with one another.
Here’s a quote from Nature's peer review policy: "The following types of contribution to Nature Research journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Matters Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives and Insight articles. Correspondence and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors."
This is basic information about the way academic journals work. Peer review by a journal's editorial board takes months, so how could the news or editorials in Nature possibly discuss current events (which they often do) if they had to go through that process before publication? It's very strange that someone who edits articles about scientific topics would have been confused about this. But this confusion does explain why you thought the editorials or book reviews published in a high-quality academic journal would reliably indicate the academic consensus, even in cases where they are arguing for something that is quite clearly not the academic consensus, as in the sex differences example. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, you didn't even click through and glance at the sources I quoted before posting this? The first one (from 2017) is indeed written by the editorial board of Nature, just as I said: [60] Note too that the statement you quote makes clear that reviews published in Nature are indeed peer-reviewed, but that is beside the point wrt the sources I referenced here. Please do your homework before posting nonsense. Generalrelative (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
"Reviews" in this context means literature reviews, not book reviews. Nature has an entire subset of journals for papers of that type, with names like Nature reviews genetics or Nature reviews neuroscience. Book reviews in academic journals are almost never subject to peer review; that's the standard practice for academic journals in general.
Where does the 2017 editorial say that it was written or reviewed by the journal's editorial board? It was published in their collection of weekly news articles, [61] none of which give an author, as the is standard practice for their brief news articles. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Go back and read the bit you quoted again. It's clear this refers to book reviews, not just articles that present systematic literature reviews (they peer-review letters). But for the moment this is off-topic so I will not continue to argue if you refuse to read what's in front of your eyes.
"This Week" is indeed written by the editorial board. If you scroll down to the next entry in the PDF you just linked, the authors make clear that they are the journal's editors. Just to be (hopefully) done with this, I'll quote it for you: "No editor of Nature will make that mistake again. So, in plenty of time, this week we offer readers the first official notification that chairs must be turned to face the correct way on 21 August." But really, who else do you think would have written it? Some intern? And they just prominently published it in their flagship journal without vetting it? What a preposterous notion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Nature's news articles are probably written by Celeste Biever, the journal's chief news editor, or by one of the journal's other news editors. It's unclear how the quote you posted contradicts that. Is it because the quote refers to a news article as having been written by an "editor" (that is, one of the journal's news editors)?
Please think for a minute about the implications what you're proposing. Nature's editorial board is made up of dozens of people, with backgrounds in a variety of fields, most of which have nothing to do with race or intelligence. When a paper is peer reviewed, that is never done by the entire editorial board. It's done by a few reviewers who were selected for being qualified to review a paper on that particular topic, usually including some reviewers from outside the journal. A journal's entire editorial board doing anything as a unit is not something that happens. These are basic norms of how academic publishing works, and Nature would be a very bizarre journal if it were handling it differently. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
At this point I am done humoring you. Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact, and this talk page thread is not a forum for you to present opinions which clearly contradict established guidelines such as WP:MEDRS. I will leave you with one final quote from WP:RSP: "Note that some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature and The Lancet, are entirely missing from this list, most likely because they are so clearly reliable that there was no need to discuss them at all." If you insist on pursuing the matter, take it up with RSN. Further violations of WP:FORUM will be considered disruptive and removed. Generalrelative (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is disagreeing with you that these sources are reliable. The problem is that you have been arguing Nature's news and editorials represent the academic consensus, and so reliable sources that take differing perspectives can't be cited in this article. Three editors (Maxipups Mamsipupsovich, Gardenofaleph and now me) are telling you the argument you're using here doesn't make sense, and Gardenofaleph explained in detail why your underlying premise about journals' editorial boards is false.
For a broad journal like Nature, which represents basically of science, it is simply impossible to have an editorial board with an expert from literally every scientific subfield. The point of peer review is to solicit the opinions of EXPERTS IN YOUR FIELD, specifically. An editorial board in a generalist journal could not possibly represent “academic consensus” about a highly technical topic in the fields of psychology and behavior genetics. As someone with a career in academia I also can confirm that journal editorials are not usually reviewed by (expert, outside) peers, and shouldn't be taken as representing academic consensus. Repeating this argument is treading close to WP:IDHT behavior. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year. All the sources I've cited in discussions since then have been in the interest of assuming good faith and explaining this consensus to skeptical editors, including that previous discussion about Warne's book.
And FYI I am also a professional academic. Many of us who contribute to this topic are. So I'd ask you to be a bit more circumspect instead of claiming special insight into the peer-review process. Indeed, there is nothing at all controversial about my belief that the editorial board of Nature knows what it's doing in terms of both the research it chooses to publish and the editorial opinions it expresses. While these editorials are not the core of the research that establishes the relevant scientific consensus, I think it's clear that they can serve as reliable guides to help us articulate that consensus (to other editors and to our readers).
In any case, since the current derailment of this thread has been augmented by another voice, I will at least steer it toward the proper forum. You can now debate this issue at: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Nature editorials as guides for articulating existing consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
A link to the archived discussion: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_325#Nature_editorials_as_guides_for_articulating_existing_consensus Generalrelative (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The study in "Nature" seems to have detected evidence of significant population differences in three of the ten traits (height, waist-to-hip ratio, and schizophrenia) rather that in educational attainment though it is mentioned/tested for (and the other traits they test for).
From the study:
"We show that SNPs associated with height (P=2.46×10−5), waist-to-hip ratio (P=2.77×10−4), and schizophrenia (P=3.96×10−5) are significantly more differentiated among populations than matched “control” SNPs..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04191-y
In another source it is also mentioned that genes that seem to influence educational attainment in groups of European descent may have significantly less predictive power for African Americans.
"...First, our within-family analyses suggest that GWAS estimates may overstate the causal effect sizes ... Without controls for this bias, it is therefore inappropriate to interpret the polygenic score for educational attainment as a measure of genetic endowment.
Second, we found that our score for educational attainment has much lower predictive power in a sample of African-American individuals than in a sample of individuals with an European ancestry ..."
https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/genes-success-not-exactly
Skllagyook (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Look closely at the tables in the supplementary data. The population differences in frequency of EAY alleles were smaller than for some of the other traits this study examined, but the differences for EAY alleles still were statistically significant.
And yes, I'm aware that EAY alleles have lower predictive power in African populations than in European populations. This finding is consistent with what we'd expect to see if group differences had a genetic component, but I wasn't arguing that it constitutes proof. As I said in my last post, I was merely commenting on the claim that Nature journals have never published anything to the contrary of those editorials, because that statement isn't true, and it would be best if people here could stop saying that. Gardenofaleph (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, you only highlight why random editors can't be trusted to publish their own inferences on Wikipedia. You've presented no evidence at all to support your claim that I am wrong about Nature and Science, or about the persistence of the consensus in question. Squinting at data and hand-waving about what it means do not change this. If you're qualified to publish on this topic in a scientific journal, by all means go out and do so. But until you do your opinion on what this study might imply about race and intelligence is irrelevant. Generalrelative (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
You wrote:
"And yes, I'm aware that EAY alleles have lower predictive power in African populations than in European populations. This finding is consistent with what we'd expect to see if group differences had a genetic component..."
I don't think that's necessarily true/it cannot be assumed. It could also be more that high EAY alleles characteristic of Europran populations are more likely to be known because European (and increasingly Asian) populations have been significantly/a lot more sampled and studied than African populations (and the relationship between the alleles found in them and their EAY) - which is what some authors have suggested - (African populations, especially since they gave been separated from the ancestors of European/Eurasian populations for a very long time, may have their own other characteristic EAY alleles not found or rarely found in Europeans and similar groups). The conclusions it suggests are as yet unclear (especially since the alleles so far identified only predict a fairly small fraction of variance even in Europeans), and interpretations are best left up to WP:RS. Skllagyook (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article by Professor Rindermann et al. be included, and if so in what context?

CLOSED
Editor who opened RfC has been blocked as a sock. –dlthewave ☎ 03:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article by Professor Rindermann et al. be included, and if so in what context? DishingMachine (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to the article "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804158/

Should this article by Professor Rindermann et al. be included, and if so in what context?
Yes, this can be included. No, this should not be included.
  • Support inclusion:
  • Support for lack of inclusion:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of Rindermann survey

CLOSED
Editor who proposed this has been blocked as a sock. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The peer-reviewed literature "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests" quite literally does represent the general scientific consensus, as it is a survey of the general consensus of scientific experts. This is the opposite of WP:FRINGE. First, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence

the above link does discuss Rindermann, but in the context of supporting Lynn's or others' work, as opposed to being used soley on its own. Second, the consensus on Rindermann, if existent, is that the survey is reliable. This has already been discussed, please see the link above. Also, Rindermann's other works or personal views are irrelevant to the peer-reviewed survey which doesn't describe and is not relevant to Rindermann's own views. --DishingMachine (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)DishingMachine

I will consider adding this information back if there is no valid reason why it shouldn't be included. --DishingMachine (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)DishingMachine
This survey of Rindermann's has been discussed quite a bit, both in the RFC and in the archives of this talk page. If you've read those discussions, I don't know how you could think that consensus is for the reliability of that source or that it should be included in this article, it is quite the opposite. - MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:MrOllie. The rfc (the link) clearly states in its decision that "There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above."
(And in the the Rinderman source, the response rate from researchers questioned was only 20%). One primary source is not enough to support a claim of consensus (reliable secondary sources are preferred). And Rinderman and Becker's (the co-author's) associations with fringe researchers and journals (as also discussed) are relevant to their reliability (or lack thereof). Skllagyook (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
DishingMachine's stance is reasonable. The use of "consensus" as an argument for why a study bringing forth opposing information to the article should not be included is not logical. Consensus does not mean or imply truth, argument from consensus is a logical fallacy, just because a large amount of people believe or say something as one particular thing or way does not mean it's inherently truthful. Chinese and Russian researchers nearly fully accept race as a valid biological classification, yet because there's a harsh stance on the validity of race within the West, it must then be untrue and the researchers within the East are somehow inherently wrong. There's no reason not to include a study published on a site that other studies within the article are pulled from. There seems to be a bias against almost all opposing information in regards to race on Wikipedia. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Nonethless, Wikipedia is run by WP:CONSENSUS. And the consensus is that the sources broadly indicate it is a fringe theory. More generally, per WP:RS, Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. One study isn't a good source. And this is one line from one study (the abstract doesn't actually reflect the line that's being extracted from it), making the way it's being used here extremely WP:UNDUE. Beyond that, it does not say anything remotely resembling what it is being cited for (even if it was a usable source, it is careful to note its limitations and does not say the current scientific consensus is that both genetics and the environment explain that national and continental differences in IQ - it specifically states that it is a very narrow and limited survey of a small number of academics in a limited context, without arguing that it is a representative sample that demonstrates broader scientific consensus.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Relying on a logical fallacy to base the construction of an article off of is still nonsensical and illegitimate. What a group of editors have to say on an information divulging website in regards to legitimately important topics is irrelevant, their purpose is to provide information and sources, not make decisions on the validity of an argument or topic. The study itself still states that, “Around 90% of experts believed that genes had at least some influence on cross-national differences in cognitive ability.” Are the perspectives of the experts interviewed now incorrect because of what a website editor has to say? History is ripe with mistakes of using the “consensus” as a way to argue, whether it be the arguments over the geocentric and heliocentric models of the Solar System, or Wegener’s theory of continental drift, which was largely disregarded by the “scientific consensus” at the time. The acknowledgement of each side’s argument and evidence provided is needed. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If it isn't fair to say "the current scientific consensus is that both genetics and the environment explain that national and continental differences in IQ," then how about we include the source using only direct quotes? --DishingMachine (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)DishingMachine
My reasons for adding that information is, in my view, completely valid on The Bell Curve page. Your use of WP:UNDUE doesn't match what Wikipedia says WP:UNDUE means, and you said the article "doesn't mention this book, making it WP:SYNTH," however the article does mention the book, albeit briefly. In addition, it is a follow up to a study on that page that has its own section, so it is definitely relevant and not synthesis. This is pretty irrelevant to this article, though. Rindermann's contributions to other journals are not remotely relevant as we are talking about a peer-reviewed, multiple-authored survey that discusses the views of other scientists, not Rindermann.--DishingMachine (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)DishingMachine
Rindermann still provides evidence for his contributions to journals, and he has his credentials. The academic journal Frontiers In Psychology must have found the study legitimate enough to publish, along with NCBI adding it to its database. Are James Dewey Watson's contributions to biology and genetics now discarded because he stated that genetics has an influence on cognitive differences between races? Shall his Nobel Prize be rescinded? Reaper1945 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
James Watson's views on race were definitely fringe views, as are Rindermann's. What their credentials or writings are in other areas is irrelevant to this discussion. As pointed out repeatedly in this thread and the edit summaries, all of this has been discussed before at great length, leading to a consensus of editors on the fringe nature of theories that claim that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence. This does not have to be re-litigated every time an editor comes along who disagrees with this consensus. NightHeron (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The "consensus" obviously has flaws in its decision-making process, subjective opinions are driving the conversation instead of an actual acknowledgment of what both sides are presenting. Science is open-ended and ever expanding, not at all is it solely about being one perspective and one perspective only. Discarding data that does not align with the model is illogical and without merit. If data throughout history was always discarded because it went against the mainstream point of view, then there would surely be a lack of reasonable theories and perspectives found in the scientific community today. Reaper1945 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Reaper1945, If you'd like to overhaul Wikipedia's decision making process, the place to do that is Wikipedia_talk:Consensus. Such arguments are off topic here. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussing consensus hardly seems off topic considering it's being used as the main way of arguing in this discussion. Nevertheless, it is still a logical fallacy. Reaper1945 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Consensus is our fundamental model for editorial decision making. It is relevant to every discussion, which is why it is only appropriate to debate it at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus, as MrOllie has rightly indicated. Failing to accept this is essentially admitting that one is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that because one disagrees, they must have malicious intent in what they do, which is untrue, unless objectively proven. Pointing out that relying on consensus is a logical fallacy itself is not "failing to accept" anything, it's how it is regardless of a website's perspective on the issue. Is a dissenting point of view objectively failing to "collaboratively build an encyclopedia"? Reaper1945 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Poorly-framed attempts at a "gotcha" are not appropriate, and neither is casting aspersions by misrepresenting what other people are saying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a high school debate club, so logical fallacies cannot be a winning "tactic" here. Further, this no longer has anything to do with improving the article. So yes, your attempt to derail the discussion can be fairly described as failing to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
There was no attempt at a "gotcha", your assumption is equally distasteful and inappropriate. Wikipedia is a website which provides information to readers, not a website that has the ultimate say on highly contested and discussed topics within scientific and academic communities. Wikipedia not being a "high school debate club", does not exclude it from criticism over the use of logical fallacies. Regardless of what Wikipedia is called, the use of logic and avoiding the use of logical fallacies is universal, so your quip about what Wikipedia is, is ignorant. The argument is still over the integration of a study into the article, nothing has been derailed or off course, when it's still about whether or not to include the study. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear (before moving on from this topic, hopefully forever): Consensus is a method of decision-making. Consensus doesn't make things true, and no one here is claiming that. Claiming that we're claiming that, and therefore that we're guilty of committing a logical fallacy, is a silly misrepresentation. We use logic here all the time. But knowing how to say words like "logic" and "fallacy" doesn't give you super-powers to overturn existing consensus. Before disengaging I will suggest that you take a look at the essay WP:TRUTH. It's not a binding policy like WP:CONS but it's got a lot of community buy-in nonetheless. And who knows, it might even make you think. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I see that making disingenuous remarks seems to be a favorite of editors on here during a serious discussion. No one stated that knowing the basic tenets of logical reasoning would give them super-powers to do things that other's couldn't, it's widely known. One would hope that an editor in an intelligence section would know that. No need to make offhand remarks about what someone may be doing or thinking either. No insults or questionably appropriate remarks were made towards opposing parties by the dissenting parties in this discussion, the same should be able to be said for the opposing party. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
But we aren't discussing Rindermann's views. We are discussing survey results which do not involve Rindermann. Peer-review is brutal. The survey results are legitimate science. Additionally, if editors are frequently disagreeing with what you think the consensus is, then perhaps it isn't the consensus. To quote Andrew Nguyen: "Wikipedia must follow what high quality sources say. No amount of arguing about whether something is racist or not on page talks can overrule what reliable sources say." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DishingMachine (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Please see the following page before saying that Rindermann should be removed:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content."

To highlight the important part:

"The NPOV policy. . . does not forbid properly sourced bias."

This page aligns excellently with the definition of a NPOV issue.--DishingMachine (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV, it is usually possible to find sources which imply support for WP:FRINGE views. This is an obscure, disputable source which is being used to imply something contrary to the rest of the article. This is one part of what makes it a fringe position. Implying academic support for a fringe view would be a form of editorial bias, and per NPOV, this would be a valid reason to remove said content.
For this and many other reasons already explained, these surveys are unlikely to gain consensus. As for "peer review", since you are also editing the Mankind Quarterly article, you should know that it's not a trump card. There are many peer-reviewed sources (including but not limited to Mankind Quarterly) which are "peer reviewed" but also unreliable. Frontiers in Psychology was, among other issues, part of Beall's List, so there plenty of red-flags here. I'm also seeing MDPI's Psych being used recently. That's the successor to OpenPsych, and should be treated accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashkenazi Jews

@NightHeron: Could you please explain why you feel that a section on the Ashkenazi Jews is WP:UNDUE and out of place? Their high average IQ is well-documented, and the argument that this developed due to genetic selection is compelling and highly relevant to the article, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources. Stonkaments (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments:: Let me recall that you've already been informed (please see my comment on your user talk-page this past 6 Oct) about the consensus achieved at the RfC on Race and Intelligence at [62]. The result of that RfC was that the view that some races are genetically superior to other races in intelligence is a fringe POV. We already discussed this once in connection with Heiner Rindermann, and there's no need to re-discuss it. NightHeron (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, and yes I am aware of the WP:FRINGE determination. But there seems to be some misunderstanding on this page of what exactly WP:FRINGE does and doesn't imply. For example, Generalrelative said in a previous discussion, The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year. [63] This seems to be a misreading of WP:FRINGE—nowhere does it state that sources containing a fringe view are inadmissible.
Specifically, being a fringe POV doesn't imply that the content is not suitable for the article, as long as it is notable (per independent reliable sources) and presented in proper context, without undue weight. I believe my addition met all of these criteria, as the study concerning Ashkenazi Jews' intelligence was published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal, has been cited 262 times according to Google Scholar, and covered in numerous independent media outlets.[64][65][66][67]
Indeed, we have an entire section of the article dedicated to "Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences", so clearly there is some agreement that such content is relevant and notable, despite the WP:FRINGE consensus. Maybe the information on Ashkenazi Jews would better fit in that section? Stonkaments (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(added after Generalrelative's comment below) Concerning your specific point above, the section "Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences" explains in some detail the methodological fallacies that mainstream scientists have found in the various theories about genetic racial superiority/inferiority. It also explains the difference between genetic theories of individual variation and genetic theories of group differences. The section does not give credence to the latter racialist theories; to do so would violate WP:FRINGE. What you proposed to add states that Azhkenazi Jews were "selected for intelligence" starting in medieval Europe; this suggests a genetic role in the IQ scores, which is a fringe POV. In addition, discussing Jewish people as a group in this article is problematic, because mainstream Jewish organizations dispute the notion that it is a "race" (see [68]), and in fact identify the notion of Jews being a "race" as a key feature of anti-semitism (see [69]). NightHeron (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you please point me to where in the policy it says that violates WP:FRINGE? Per WP:FRINGENOT: "The purpose of this project is not to determine truth, but to accurately cover the worldwide view with appropriate weight given to notable viewpoints." This is clearly a notable view, and is being narrowly attributed to the authors of the study (rather than making or "giving credence" to the claims in wikivoice), so it seems entirely appropriate here. Maybe your concerns could be best addressed by further contextualizing the study by adding critiques and counterarguments?
I recognize your concern about discussing Jewish people as a group, but the study (and my addition to the article) discusses specifically Ashkenazi Jews, who were reproductively isolated for roughly a thousand years and have been found to be a clear, distinct genetic subgroup.[70] Stonkaments (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The lead of WP:FRINGE says that a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Right now the section on "Research into the possible..." adheres to this policy. The text you proposed adding does not. A lot of fringe views, including racial ones, are notable in the sense that a lot of people believe them, they influence how those people behave, and they keep appearing in print and online in various venues. Theories that some races are genetically superior/inferior to others in intelligence are such a viewpoint.
As I understand it (and it's not something I've studied), there are Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews, differing in what region their ancestors lived in. Neither is a "race", and together they don't form a "race". Discussing Ashkenazi Jews in an article on Race and intelligence is out of place. BTW, it strains credulity to say that Ashkenazi Jews were "reproductively isolated for roughly a thousand years". A huge number of Ashkenazi Jews have ancestry that is partly Slavic for the same reason that many African Americans have substantial caucasian ancestry. The anti-semitic pogroms in the Russian empire included rampant rape as well as murder, just as slaves in the US were often raped by their owners. NightHeron (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The relevant question isn't whether or not Ashkenazi Jews comprise their own "race" (and I agree with you that they don't), but whether reliable sources find that the study of Ashekenazi Jews informs the broader discussion and study of Race and intelligence—in particular regarding a possible genetic influence on differences in groups' intelligence test scores. And the answer to that question is clearly yes.[71][72][73][74] (In the same way that I don't think white British, British Nigerians, British Ghanaians, etc. are distinct races, but their test scores are seen as notable and relevant to the discussion).
I understand your concern for wanting to convey the information in a way that does not make it appear more notable or widely accepted than it is, and I appreciate your patience in helping me understand your point of view. I'll try re-writing it to include a more clear and thorough context including common critiques such as the theory's implausibility, lack of mainstream support, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest that if you write some text on that subject, it would be best first to propose it here on the talk-page, so that editors who watchlist this page might weigh in. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
NightHeron is correct here. Being FRINGE means that we handle sources in a specific way. See, e.g. Bigfoot. The text that you tried to add, on the other hand, presented FRINGE material as though it were factual / accepted science. The distinction is really not that hard to understand. Generalrelative (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that it presented the material as accepted science. I was careful to explicitly attribute the claims to the authors of the study: Cochran, Hardy and Harpending (2006) argue that these IQ differences arose due to "the unique demography and sociology of Ashkenazim" in medieval Europe, which selected for intelligence. I'm willing to collaborate to improve the wording if you think it is unclear, but first we need to agree on whether the material deserves mention in the article at all.
And I believe the comparison to Bigfoot is wrong for a few different reasons:
  1. One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject.[75] The study on Ashkenazi Jews' intelligence was published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal, which differentiates it from outlandish Bigfoot-esque claims.
  2. Per WP:FRINGE/PS, on the spectrum of fringe theories, the view that racial differences in intelligence may have a genetic component is a credible alternative theoretical formulation, rather than "obviously bogus" pseudoscience or a hoax like Bigfoot. Stonkaments (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The crucial point here is that this article is not an appropriate platform for alternative theoretical formulations. We do have an article called History of the race and intelligence controversy which is much more capacious in terms of junk science, but I'm not sure that the stuff you're seeking to add belongs there either. In any case that would be a separate question.
The paper you cited by Cochran, Hardy and Harpending simply "elaborates the hypothesis". It doesn't even count as primary evidence (like a controlled study), let alone the kind of reliable secondary source that would cause us to reevaluate what belongs in an article about mainstream scientific understanding.
I'm not sure if you're aware of all the previous on-Wiki debate that has gone down surrounding "Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence". If not I would suggest that you check out the talk page archives of the deleted article of that name. You might also see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(2nd_nomination). TLDR: the topic itself may be notable but much of the speculation and primary research surrounding it are utterly unscientific. In other words, much more like Bigfoot than one might initially suspect. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Adoption studies page

Probably makes sense to mention that the Minnesota adoption study is the only one that followed up the subjects to adolescence. Typically the effects of shared environment (what most would call family environment/upbringing) disappear or at least diminish dramatically when adolescence is reached while the power of genetics to explain a larger share of the variation of the IQ increases.

This is also true of the Minnesota adoption study - during childhood it seemed that the shared environment had an impact, but when reaching adulthood the effect disappeared. So the studies of children cited as somehow evidence contrary to what the Minnesota study shows is misleading. However, I'm not accusing the editors of purposefully misleading - it was obvious from early discussions that many of the editors were not aware of how adoption studies worked and indeed thought they studied twins reared apart.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:84C5:2D7D:23DE:3559 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The article does mention the Minnesota follow-up study at age 17. As is clear from the article on the Minnesota study (see [76]), multiple interpretations are possible. The authors of the study themselves took an "agnostic" view about hereditarian explanations. Several later commentators, noting all the confounding variables that were not controlled for, have made it clear that the study conveys little of scientific value. NightHeron (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't mention that it's the only study that does that.

It shows similar results to all other adoption studies - that the effect of shared environment on IQ disappears entirely or is reduced dramatically as the adoptees reach adolescence. Its design and results are little different to all other adoption studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:15CE:3B4A:8B47:E2B8 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you're right that the Minnesota study is the best of the adoption studies, and if the Minnesota study was inconclusive and had methodological flaws (confounding variables), then all that means is that the other adoption studies were even worse. So it's not clear what's accomplished by pointing out that the other adoption studies didn't bother to do a follow-up. NightHeron (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the impact of shared environment disappears or is dramatically reduced by adolescence. You can see the link I linked earlier to see this is what all adoption show. Twin studies also show this. Whether one is raised by high IQ adoptive parents makes little to no difference to ones IQ when one reaches adulthood. The biological parents IQ predicts ones IQ very well, whether the biological parents raised them or not. This is the conclusions from both adoption and twin studies, that are much more rigorous methodologically than most research cited in this Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia reports reliable sources, preferably academic studies. You have failed to cite any credible bases for your assertions. When you find such, come back and produce them. Until you do, no-one will take seriously anything you have to say, so you are wasting your breath. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. There also seems to be a misunderstanding here about the distinction between individual and group-level differences. The article cited by the IP is already discussed in Heritability of IQ, as is the fact that Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ have a genetic basis. To successfully argue for a change in this article, the IP would need to provide a reliable secondary source that explicitly comments on the relationship between race and intelligence, which the article they've cited above does not. Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is the study I linked not reliable? Since all adoption studies show that the effect of shared environment disappears or is dramatically reduced as adoptees reach adolescence, why should the Wikipedia article presume this is not the case when it comes to interracial adoption, especially since the only (imperfect) study of interracial adoption also indicates this?

What is the sort of evidence John Maynard Friedman you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:88D7:EE00:9A6F:9050 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read our policy no original research. Your question "why should the Wikipedia article presume this is not the case..." may seem rhetorical to you, but in fact there are a ton of reasons why heritability at the individual level does not translate to group-level differences, and a whole host of confounding factors which emerge at the group level that are not necessarily apparent to armchair observers. The way we handle complex scientific matters like this is through our policies and guidelines, for example no original research and reliable sources. If your interpretation of the science were correct (i.e. that twin studies provide evidence for genetic differences in intelligence between racial groups), it would be possible to cite a reliable secondary source that states this explicitly. Generalrelative (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not doing any original research. I'm just pointing out a well established finding from adoption studies that shows that the studies cited in the article that are supposed to show findings contrary to the one from Minnesota Transracial Adoption study do not show such findings. Comparing adoption studies of children that show shared environment having an impact with a study of adults showing shared environment does not have an impact is misleading, as the impact of shared environment is reduced dramatically or disappears when children reach adulthood according to all adoption studies. Right now the studies are portrayed as giving results different from the Minnesota one, which is not the case - they show same results and are in no way contradicting each other or providing findings that contradict that of the Minnesota adoption study.

It is original research to indicate that the adoption studies cited as showing results different from Minnesota ones are doing so. All studies (Minnesota one and the studies cited as showing findings contrary to that of Minnesota one) show shared environment during childhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:88D7:EE00:9A6F:9050 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Source used in the article contradict the article

For example, Mackintosh "IQ and Human Intelligence, Second Edition" cited in the article (163) states about whether black-white IQ gap is genetic in origin: "it would probably be even more reasonable to aknowledge that the evidence is simply not sufficient to provide a definitive answer one way or the other - and possibly never will." (page 344).

Should we remove Mackintosh as an unreliable source, since it contradicts the idea that there is a scientific consensus that the gap is not genetic in origin? Or mention that the scientific consensus has not established evidence that has given a definitive answer one way or the other? Seems to be contradictory to define the same source as reliable in some instances while not seeing it as reliable in others. Especially since the claim that scientific consensus exists that it's entirely environmental is not backed up by any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:B58F:CF5A:2948:DE82 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Once again, please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, for example no original research and reliable sources. It is perfectly normal for a source to be considered reliable for a certain set of claims (about which the author has special expertise) but not all claims (i.e. when they stray into speculation, as with the quote you've referenced above). Generalrelative (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently there is no source cited for the claim that there is a scientific consensus that differences are 100% environmental. How is that allowed? How is the quote I cited anymore speculative or out his expertise than the claims he makes cited in the Wikipedia article? How can we establish objectively which claims are such that his expertise is credible and which are not? And how is quoting this person original research? Familiarising yourself with our policies and guidelines might also be good for you. Making claims that the scientific consensus is that the differences are 100% environmental without any sources is definitely not in line with the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:B58F:CF5A:2948:DE82 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, words like "probably" and "possibly" are a good sign that the author is straying into speculation. And it's because Mackintosh was a good scholar that he provided these signposts to make such an evaluation easy. In other cases we need to exercise our collective judgment. As to your other (falsely predicated) questions, I won't repeat what has been stated repeatedly above. Feel free to search the archives for past discussions. I will remark that it is odd for someone to present themselves as being already familiar with our guidelines and policies while apparently unaware of how to sign their comments. In any case, unless I see evidence that you have actually become more familiar with these policies and guidelines –– and are thus able to present a cogent argument –– I will no longer be responding to your posts. This should not be taken as tacit consent for your views. Generalrelative (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The same words are used when he discusses the Minnesota adoption studies? How do we establish what are the areas he has expertise to make claims about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:C100:2955:CCAB:E435 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No source for the claim that the scientific consensus is that the differences are 0% genetic?

The first paragraph states "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups, and that observed differences are therefore environmental in origin."

All the surveys of intelligence researchers seem to suggest otherwise, unless there are some that I'm not aware, in which case they should be cited as a source. What are the sources for the claim in the first paragraph? Seems like POV pushing.

It's also in contradiction with articles such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:B053:9A89:8E8F:7F86 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed at great length last year, see [77]. The result of that RfC was that the view that some races are genetically superior to other races in intelligence is a fringe POV. There's no need to re-discuss this here. NightHeron (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Clearly a faulty result, the opinion of that Wikipedia admin is contradicted by mainstream academic sources. This issue needs to be examined at a higher level I think. Spork Wielder (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Spork Wielder, It was not the opinion of a single admin, but process that gathered opinions from many editors. This is pretty much the top of the pyramid as far as making content decisions on Wikipedia goes. Overruling it would require running another RFC, with similar levels of attendance, that goes the other way. That's not really likely to happen. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the result of the RfC was examined at two higher levels (AN and ArbCom), and was sustained. NightHeron (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: Could you point me to the AN and ArbCom review of this RfC? I can only find the ArbCom review back in 2012 [78]. Thanks. Stonkaments (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The AN closure review is here: [79]. I've had difficulty finding the ArbCom discussion, perhaps because no action was taken. A complaint to ArbCom was made by one of the editors who was unhappy with the closure of the RfC, and an IP-editor then joined in to attack me directly. That's the only time I've ever been brought into a discussion on ArbCom, and I'm not knowledgeable about how ArbCom works or why it's hard to find a record of that discussion. There is a reference to the ArbCom discussion and a link to the IP's attack on me here: [80]. Sorry I haven't been able to locate the full ArbCom discussion. NightHeron (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The ArbCom request related to the RFC was filed as a clarification request on the old ArbCom case, such requests are archived on the talk page of the ArbCom case in question. ArbCom chose to do nothing (unsurprising, since reviewing content decisions is outside their mandate.) Reviewing the case did remind me that discretionary sanctions are authorized for this topic area, though. Continued warring against the RFC result could be handed with topic bans on WP:AE. MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Did you read the article on the letter you linked? Most of the people who signed it were not experts in the field they were commenting on. The opinions of non-experts expressing opinions outside their area of expertise doesn't carry much weight. A similar strategy is frequently used to attack the science on climate change and even, in some cases, evolution - throwing together a list of scientists from unrelated fields who know nothing about the topic but who have strong feelings about it regardless; it's easy to find a ton of such names on any culture-war issue, but it certainly doesn't represent any sort of meaningful academic consensus. If you want some recent research rather than culture-war salvos from 30 years ago, see [81][82][83][84], in addition to many sources already in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Your own source contradicts the claim that there is a scientific consensus that genetics explain 0% of the variation. First of all it states that there is ongoing debate, not a consensus about the topic. Second of all, it states the following for example:

" When the between group variance attributable to trait-associated SNPs is compared to the observed phenotypic between-group variance, over 85% of the between-group variance in IQ is not attributable to additive genetic effects, where at most 4.7-8.7 IQ points could be attributed to such genetic effects"

How can a source that says at most 4.7 - 8.7 IQ points could be attributed to genetic effects be used to make the claim that there is consensus that the effect of genetics is 0? The paper says that there is a possibility that the contribution of environment is 0, but surely this is different from claiming there is a consensus its zero?

Here is another Wikipedia article in direct contradiction with the opening paragraph of this article.

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:101A:AB08:BD42:6253 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What you're claiming does not make logical sense. (1) Of course there's still "controversy" about whether some races are genetically inferior to others, just as there is still controversy over whether anthropogenic climate change is just a fabrication of climate scientists, about whether evolution is a fabrication of atheists, about whether aliens landed at Roswell, and so on. Controversies persist because huge numbers of people persist in believing in fringe theories. (2) When researchers write that they have rigorously shown that the genetic effect could not be more than a few percent, directly contradicting what racialist hereditarians say, that does not imply that they believe that it is greater than zero percent. It just means that they cannot prove that it's zero percent. The inability to prove rigorously that a fringe theory is false is not evidence that it's true. We can't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. (3) The Wikipedia article you cite describes a book that supports the POV of the racialist hereditarians, but the fact that Wikipedia describes that book and the reactions to it does not imply that Wikipedia supports its POV. NightHeron (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: You're of course absolutely correct here (except that "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" was an open letter published in the Wall Street Journal, not a book). But I'd argue that it's entirely okay at this point to ignore this IP range. Picking one very specific statement about the limits of one specific method and using it to misrepresent the overall argument of the cited piece is really beyond the kind of thing we need to take seriously, even if we assume good faith. See their repeated exercise of similar strategies above. Seems to me that it is quite enough, as you did in your initial reply here, to refer them to last year's RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: Sorry -- I didn't notice that the IP referred to two different Wikipedia articles, and my comment related only to the IP's second example.
The IP doesn't seem to understand the difference between something being notable enough to have an article and being mainstream. Of course all sorts of fringe people and books have Wikipedia pages.
You make a good point that, when confronted with illogical POV-pushing, it's best to resist getting drawn into repetitive arguments. NightHeron (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: Aha, my apologies for the overzealous correction. I hadn't noticed the second wikilink. Generalrelative (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Except there is no similar debate in the scientific community about whether creationism is true or whether humans contribute to climate change. I find it unconvincing that the following professional bodies, from which the experts surveyed where randomly chosen, would be filled with "racialist hereditarians". It seems to me that Wikipedia has chosen that its editors are in a better position to know what the research says than the experts from the following institutions:

  • American Educational Research Association (120)
  • National Council on Measurement in Education (120)
  • American Psychological Association:
  • Development psychology division (120)
  • Educational psychology division (120)
  • Evaluation and Measurement division (120)
  • School psychology division (120)
  • Counseling psychology division (60)
  • Industrial and organizational psychology division (60)
  • Behavior Genetics Association (60)
  • American Sociological Association (education) (60)
  • Cognitive Science Society (60)

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:101A:AB08:BD42:6253 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Any claims that the scientific consensus believes genetics plays no role in intelligence differences are simply not supported by the evidence in the field.
I would like to remind editors that there is a spectrum of fringe theories, and arguments in favor of a genetic component to racial differences in intelligence are a clear Alternative theoretical formulation on the far end of the spectrum, rather than obvious pseudoscience like creationism on the other end. Continued attempts to compare a reasonable alternative theoretical formulation, with a well-documented line of inquiry and support in the mainstream scientific community, to something like creationism or Big Foot, strains the limits on assuming WP:GOODFAITH. Likewise for implying that the science is settled in this area of inquiry, and that the only controversy is due to "racialist hereditarians" akin to creationists or climate deniers. Such framing of the debate, combined with the ongoing refusal to allow any additions to the article that suggest a genetic component may be involved, strike me as exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP over the article and POV pushing.
Edited to add: When a source says "over 85% of the between-group variance in IQ is not attributable to additive genetic effects", it is a BIG stretch to conclude that the author really believes the effect is 0% but just can't prove it. Notice the author himself concludes the evidence is "consistent with genetic differences contributing little [emphasis added] to the Black–White gap". If he really thought the evidence showed that genetics had no effect, why wouldn't he say that, rather than little?Stonkaments (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
1) It seems you have not understood the source you are quoting at all. The author is saying that even using the flawed methodology favored by hereditarians "over 85% of the between-group variance in IQ is not attributable to additive genetic effects". The author is very explicit about this, stating that because "the assumptions of this model violate core principles of modern population genetics (such as no gene-environment interplay, gene-gene interactions, and similar allelic effect across populations), there is little reason to expect the genetic contribution to be this large in reality."
2) After pointing out a whole host of questionable methodological assumptions underlying this "best case estimate for genetic contributions to group differences in cognitive performance", the author concludes that "the mean-expected-difference provided here [4.7-8.7 IQ points] is likely an overestimate and should be thought of as the maximum mean difference attributable to genetic variation due to genetic drift. It is also important to note that the direction of the mean difference could favor Africans or Europeans with equal likelihood." This may be too subtle an argument for someone trying to trawl the article for shreds of doubt as to the state of the scientific consensus, but for a scientist this is actually a pretty devastating take-down.
3) You ask If he really thought the evidence showed that genetics had no effect, why wouldn't he say that, rather than little? If you had read carefully you would have seen that the author actually does remark that his results are consistent with the possibility that "the genetic contribution to the IQ gap is zero". Because this is a scientific paper, (rather than, say, an editorial) one wouldn't expect him to state his opinion on the matter, no matter how strongly held, so the absence of such a statement shows nothing. What the author does emphasize is that his study "demonstrates that patterns of genetic differences between African and European populations in the 1000 Genomes Project dataset is consistent with neutral evolution and insignificant genetic contribution to the Black-white IQ gap. In other words, the patterns observed in this study can be explained without appealing to the core tenets of the hereditarian hypothesis." That really is scientist-speak for the hereditarian hypothesis is like belief in the existence of Bigfoot: not based on evidence.
4) The article already does discuss alternative theoretical formulations, as well as the reasons why the scientific mainstream rejects them. Presenting them as though they were valid would violate WP:FRINGE per the findings of the RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, I admit I did only a cursory scan of the source based on the discussion above. Nevertheless, my point stands that it is flawed WP:OR to conclude that a best-case estimate of 15% genetic contribution "just means that they cannot prove that it's zero percent". This source is very clear that it is a take-down of the "hereditarian hypothesis", which he defines as "a significant portion of differences in cognitive performance between Black and White populations are caused by genetic differences due to natural selection". As the IP correctly pointed out, refuting this "hereditarian hypothesis" is different from the question of whether there is any genetic component.
Anyway, that was a minor side point. My larger concern is what I see as WP:OWNERSHIP and POV pushing by relegating the genetic component argument to the realm of pseudoscience like creationism and Big Foot. Per IP's second source, in response to the question, "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?", only 15% of experts who responded voted that the gap was "due entirely to environmental variation", vs. 45% who voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation" (and 1% who said it was entirely due to genetic variation). Granted that book was written nearly 40 years ago, but shouldn't that give us pause? Can you honestly say that the article accurately portrays this level of dissent? Even the "History of the controversy" section gives the impression that the argument for a genetic component was always a fringe view held only by racists to justify slavery and other atrocities. Stonkaments (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for being amenable to clarification. But I was responding to you, not to the IP's 0% argument, which seems like a red herring to me. The actual language that appears in our article is: "the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups", and this is very well sourced. Whether that means literally 0% or merely an "insignificant" contribution isn't necessary for us to parse because the language ("genetics does not explain") comes straight out of Nature.
As to my own beliefs, one of the recent reports cited by Aquillion above stated them quite well: "[T]he claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new)." [85] I don't know enough about that IQ Controversy book to speculate on its merits –– but even if it did accurately capture the state of professional understanding 40 years ago that would hardly be relevant to this article. We have a separate article on the History of the race and intelligence controversy for just such information.
In any case, let's all please try to respect the way Wikipedia works, which includes respecting (and not continually relitigating) the results of high-profile RfCs like [86]. There is really no room for ambiguity in the result, and no reason to accuse others of violating policy for working to keep this and related articles in accord with that result. Generalrelative (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the Nature article? I know it's been referenced before but I don't have it in front of me. I think it's important to look at the context of the article before concluding that there's no need to distinguish between no contribution and a >0% but insignificant contribution. I'll also note that Nature included the qualifier "an emerging consensus" that the Wikipedia article fails to reflect. The Wikipedia article also adds "and that observed differences are therefore environmental in origin", which I don't believe is reflected in the Nature article. Would it be better to simply quote Nature verbatim? And the Wikipedia article also states later on, "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups."--which is problematic because of the additional assertion of "no evidence", which I don't think is supported by the Nature article nor the RfC.
Surely the history of the debate is relevant to the article, hence why we have the "History of the controversy" section at all. Maybe it should rewritten as a WP:Summary style article, but as is it is very biased and misleading IMO.
I disagree that there is no ambiguity here. The fringe determination doesn't remove the responsibility to do the work and evaluate the evidence to determine to what extent there is a consensus that there is no genetic component, how widely held and what is the evidence in favor of the minority view that there is a small genetic component, etc. Can we agree that it's wrong to characterize a proposed genetic component as obvious pseudoscience akin to creationism? Stonkaments (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll reply to your questions in turn but will not be continuing to debate these issues ad infinitum. My silence should not be confused with tacit agreement. I am simply tired of debating the same points again and again.
1) The Nature editorial from which this language comes is [87]. The quote is "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences."
2) With regard to the statement "observed differences are therefore environmental in origin", this is WP:BLUE. There are only two options here (i.e. genetics or environment), and it is not WP:OR to make this clear to the reader. Further, in the body of the article we have four WP:RSs supporting the statement "Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap." The Nature editorial we rely on for framing our "genetics does not explain" language is far from our only source here; it's just explicit in a way that research articles typically cannot be.
3) Would it be better to simply quote Nature verbatim? No, this sentence in the lead summarizes a wide variety of WP:RSs. Again, we simply follow the phrasing of the Nature editorial because editorials are written in explicit, everyday language, and editorials in Nature are the pinnacle of the genre, at least as far as science is concerned.
4) With regard to the statement "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups", this is backed up by six WP:RSs. See especially Hunt and Mackintosh for a discussion of the lack of evidence. Both are reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and neither of them can be accused of being overly harsh toward the hereditarians, yet both acknowledge the total lack of evidence to support the idea of a genetic link between race and intelligence.
5) We include only the most relevant information in the schematic History section in this article, saving all the nitty-gritty for History of the race and intelligence controversy. If the IQ Controversy book is not discussed at length in recent secondary or tertiary sources, it doesn't rise to the level of inclusion here. Your opinions about what is "biased" and "misleading" are not going to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with your POV.
6) The RfC found: "There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory". That is indeed unambiguous. We do not promote WP:FRINGE on Wikipedia. We do report on its existence where appropriate, as we have done in this article (and more extensively in the History article). Pretending that there is a scientific rationale for believing that some genetic link exists between race and intelligence would clearly violate this finding, and no amount of hair-splitting will alter that.
7) I'm not sure about creationism, but I stand by my Bigfoot analogy. I think it captures well the persistence of belief in a thing about which there is absolutely no evidence but which some people want desperately to believe in anyway. The only difference is that believing in Bigfoot is harmless. Generalrelative (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
1) That Nature article is not an editorial. Holding it up as the definitive statement of the scientific consensus is wrong. It was the opinion of two researchers on one side of the debate; it was not written or endorsed by the editorial board. They also note that "plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded", and describe the hostile environment for any research that challenges the "politically correct" consensus. Here was the actual editorial in that issue[88].
2) It is indeed WP:OR. It is making the false assumption that the statement implies genes do not explain ANY between-group differences, when it could just as easily mean genes do not explain ALL between-group differences, genes do not explain any significant amount of between-group differences, or any number of other possibilities.
3) But we explicitly aren't following the source on a few important details. In addition to #2 above, the lead also fails to mention the authors describe an emerging consensus, and that a significant number of scholars disagree.
4) Thanks, I do plan to do a deeper dive on these sources (and others) concerning the claim that there is no evidence for a genetic component.
5) I disagree that this section adequately and neutrally summarizes the most relevant historical information. I think the fact that (assuming the source is correct) as recently as the 1980s the scientific consensus held that genetics played a role is highly relevant context for the article. I'll add that section to my to-do list.
6) "Pretending that there is a scientific rationale for believing that some genetic link exists between race and intelligence would clearly violate this finding"--this is simply not true, and is a misinterpretation of fringe, which says: "Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality." That completely contradicts your claim that fringe necessarily implies that there is no scientific rationale for the argument.
7) According to your source (and others provided by IP), the belief in a genetic component to the racial IQ gap has significant minority support in the mainstream academic community; this is simply not the case for Bigfoot or creationism. Additionally, the Nature commentary describes an environment that is overly hostile to research that dissents from the dominant view, which can "lead to a one-party science that squelches divergent views". I would suggest you reflect on that dynamic, and the motives for supporters of the dominant view to so fiercely attack any dissenting research, before casting aspersions on the motives of others. Stonkaments (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
This really needs administrative review because Generalrelative cherry picks and misrepresents a handful of sources as "consensus" in order to censor the view he doesn't like. I'm not sure someone who would claim "someone wrote it in Nature" makes something an uncontested fact should be editing Wikipedia. Spork Wielder (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) When an SPA comes in to make ridiculous accusations against a careful editor, in violation of WP:NPA, that tells us that this discussion has reached a dead end. As repeatedly mentioned above, Wikipedia editors arrived at a consensus in an RfC last year on Race and intelligence. If opponents of this consensus wish to continue bludgeoning, they should not be surprised if other editors decline to respond. NightHeron (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Your stonewalling based on the faulty RfC is what needs to be reviewed. Spork Wielder (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I should clarify something about point #4 above. The sources for the statement "no evidence for a genetic component" support what that part of the article used to say, which is "no direct evidence". This wording was changed to the current one based on the outcome of the RFC, without changing what sources were cited. It was stated explicitly that the wording was changed "without having to cite a source for the change in wording." The quoted comment was referring to the lead section, but the same wording was subsequently copied to the body of the article, again without a change in sourcing.
See also the summary given by Literaturegeek here. At the time when this wording was changed last year, multiple editors were pointing out that the sources did not support the change, but the outcome of the RFC was understood to require the change regardless of whether it was an accurate summary of what sources said.
The original phrasing "no direct evidence" was a verbatim quote from the Kaplan source, while the Nisbett et al. paper says "no new direct evidence". The Mackintosh source says (p. 358): "In spite of claims to the contrary, there is remarkably little evidence that the difference is genetic in origin." This is somewhat close to what the article cites him to say, but "remarkably little" does not mean the same thing as "none". This is not just a matter of phrasing: when Mackintosh discusses the hereditarian argument based on brain volume (p. 339), he does not reject that argument as entirely invalid, but instead argues that it could only account for a very small portion of the difference in average test scores. So, Mackintosh's phrasing "little evidence" is in fact a more accurate summary of his overall position than "no evidence".
The new wording is an especially severe distortion of what the Hunt source says. Here is a quote from that source (pp. 434-435):
"Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement [that the differences are 100% environmental] has virtually no chance of being true. However, the 100% environmental hypothesis is something of a stalking horse. Many researchers who are primarily in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say, 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences. The real debate is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one."
When someone tried to remove the same "no evidence" wording cited to the same sources (Hunt, Mackintosh, Nisbett and Kaplan) from a different article, Generalrelative explained in this edit summary that the new wording is required by the RFC. So it isn't necessary for him to re-explain why consensus requires the new wording. But let's please not pretend this change is something other than what it was widely acknowledged to be at the time: it is based on the consensus of Wikipedia editors in the RFC, not based on the sources. Gardenofaleph (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that additional context, that is very helpful. It seems clear to me when we have wording that is directly contradicted by the sources being defended by appealing to the RfC, something has gone very wrong in either the RfC itself, or the interpretation and implementation of that RfC (or both). Do you think we should revisit the RfC, or would it be more productive to examine how we can rewrite the text to stay consistent with the RfC while also aligning with the sources? Stonkaments (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this article biased towards nurture / environmental explanations because of ideological / humanistic reasons?

The Humanistic (as well Christian) viewpoint is that all humans are equal. Evolution doesn't care about this ideal though. Just as different environments can cause different selective pressures towards pigmentation, it can also cause differences in intelligence. It IS plausible to theorise that there are differences between average intelligence of races, and I feel like this article dismissed this possiblity form the beginning not for scientific, but for ideological reasons. There ARE adoption studies out there who argue race is a genetic factor in intelligence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacus1997 (talk • contribs)

No. See extensive discussions on the science above and in the talk page archives. - MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with MrOllie. There's significant consensus on excluding that fringe viewpoint, and we'd need a lot more than unsourced hypothesizing to overturn that. —Wingedserif (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Trolling. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes of course, but the clique of ethnomarxist editors that control the page have a "consensus" (among each other) to ignore core policy and lie that the hereditarian view is "fringe". These lies are supported right at the top of the Wikipedia administration. So don't waste your time, here, or with Wikipedia. Frog Tamer (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hilariously their "consensus" is based on removing even opposing comments.[89] Apparently describing what's plainly happening is "imagining" things and a "personal attack". Go figure. Frog Tamer (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
And of course my comments were removed by one of the ethnomarxist clique because apparently describing editorial bias is now a "personal attack". Naming a group of editors editing in a non-neutral manner to describe the direction of their bias is absolutely not a personal attack. Frog Tamer (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, in the same way the young-earth creationism article is protected by a clique of Lyellists, the Heliocentrism article is protected by a clique of Galileists, the Earth article is protected by a clique of round-earthers and so on. And the admins are also part of those conspiracies. Woe, woe, woe. Sad!
Meanwhile, in the real world, those articles are based on reliable sources, and those who oppose them have nothing on their hands but conspiracy theories. See above: See extensive discussions on the science above and in the talk page archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
And in this "extensive discussion" we see the same embarrassingly absurd arguments and irrelevant false analogies you just made. Frog Tamer (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Ethnomarxist? ethnonationalist is not good, so they say, so is it made exponentially worse by marxist theory? ~ cygnis insignis 13:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps; or maybe we're straining to hear the dulcet tones of a dog whistle. —Wingedserif (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Are you implying that Wikipedia is a reliable source? Frog Tamer (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC) — Frog Tamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Addition of a "current consensus" section

Given this articles extensive cyclic argumentation history, I was wondering if it would be worth implementing a "current consensus" section on this talk page akin to the one at Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus to provide a handy link to notable past discussions and consensuses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No source

The talk page header here says: "In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles." That "observed differences are therefore environmental in origin" (quote from the lede of this Wikipedia article) is not published in any of the sources of the article. I think that it should be removed --Angillo (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEADCITE EvergreenFir (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Why? --Angillo (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Really? Because it explains how the lead lacks citations because it summarizes the body of the article? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot to add: This claim in the head of the article is not repeated in its body. --Angillo (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Angillo, Sure it is, in a few places. " A 2015 study found that environmental factors (namely, family income, maternal education, maternal verbal ability/knowledge, learning materials in the home, parenting factors, child birth order, and child birth weight) accounted for the black–white gap in cognitive ability test scores.", "Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.", "They consider the entire IQ gap to be explained by the environmental factors that have thus far been demonstrated to influence it, and Mackintosh finds this view to be reasonable." Remember, the lead summarizes, it doesn't repeat sentences verbatim. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie.

A fuller quote from the article lede is:

Today, the scientific consensus is [...] and that observed differences [in IQ test performance between racial groups] are therefore environmental in origin.

Re your first quote from the body (A 2015 study found that environmental factors (namely, family income, maternal education, maternal verbal ability/knowledge, learning materials in the home, parenting factors, child birth order, and child birth weight) accounted for the black–white gap in cognitive ability test scores.):

That sentence from the article body is about what a study found about the black-white gap, whereas the claim in the lede is about scientific consensus about racial IQ test gaps in general.
That differences between blacks and whites are environmental doesn't mean that differences between e.g. asians and blacks are environmental.
And a study found in the body is a weaker claim than scientific consensus in the lede.

Re your second quote from the body (Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.):

Growing evidence indicates in the body is different from scientific consensus in the lede.

Re your third quote from the body (They consider the entire IQ gap to be explained by the environmental factors that have thus far been demonstrated to influence it, and Mackintosh finds this view to be reasonable.):

This is qualified by They consider (they being Mackintosh and his coauthors), so is not making a claim about scientific consensus, whereas the lede is making such a claim.

In summary, the claim in the lede doesn't conform to the article body, should be removed, and can be readded when it conforms to the article body by replacing scientific consensus with Growing evidence indicates. --Angillo (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Right before the "growing evidence indicates" sentence is "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." Both are cited heavily, and together would indicate that current scientific consensus is indeed that any "IQ gap" is due to environmental conditions (unless there are other factors you would like to propose?).
As MrOllie pointed out, the lead doesn't have to exactly match the source sentences from the rest of the article. To me, this seems just like a semantic choice of how to summarize, not a contradiction of the articles' citations. I do agree that if there was a literature review citation that would better support the claim, instead of individual studies. (For reference, there have been several RFCs on this topic.) —Wingedserif (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
When you say "[...] together would indicate that current scientific consensus is [...]" this seems to be drawing, to again quote the talk page header, one of those "conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and are not allowed to be included in Wikipedia. I would suggest removing the claim from the article until this criteria is met.--Angillo (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Bollocks and Wikilawyering. It's close enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've simply re-stated your original argument, rather than answered mine. If we followed your line of reasoning, paraphrasing would be impossible. —Wingedserif (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Wingedserif, you seem to be saying that because "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." therefore there must be an additional scientific consensus that IQ differences between racial groups are due to environment. The "therefore" is the problem, if that's indeed what you are saying. --Angillo (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I said it could be supported better, but both statements are supported (it is not genetic; it is environmental). If you have non-fringe sources that indicate scientific consensus attributes intelligence to some other factor, please provide them. —Wingedserif (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Please note: The OP is re-initiating the same discussion that just took place on this talk-page (see directly above). The OP of that earlier thread then took the same issue to WP:NOR/N (see [90]), where the admin who closed it determined that the consensus was that the complaint has no merit. It is not constructive to repeatedly raise the same issue in several places because of refusal to accept the outcome of earlier discussions; see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. NightHeron (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Nope, the admin who closed it said it wasn't a question of NOR but a question of editors cherry picking their preferred sources, which I agree with. So it needs to go to the appropriate board WP:FTN. And here's a section. An unargued assertion by "TonyBallioni" seems to be the entirety of the reasoning here. This simply isn't good enough. Frog Tamer (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the OP is an SPA with no contributions before today or to any other article. NightHeron (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Accusations that were only half correct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been emailed that Angillo is a blatant sock-puppet of white supremacist Mikemikev, this is the same user who has had hundreds of sock-puppets going back years commenting on this very talk-page and the Race (human categorization) one [91]. I filed an SPI against this user about a month ago. I suspect Spork Wielder and Angillo are the same person. This Mikemikev character has a history of arguing about race on throwaway accounts. The behavior matches some of his recent blocked socks [92]. I think an SPI needs to be filed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile, just ignore this troll per WP:Deny recognition. He gets off on wind-ups.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
[[User:EvergreenFir|}}, you reinstated the comment above by John Maynard Friedman. I interpreted it as talking about me, and calling me a troll and getting off on wind-ups. Both would be false. Maybe John Maynard Friedman could clarify if he was talking about me or Psychologist Guy. --Angillo (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Psychologist Guy, not true. Could you maybe tell me though private message who the person is that emailed that false allegation to you? --Angillo (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be more in reference to Mikemikev, who you were accused of being a sockpuppet of but a CU determined you were not. I'll {{hat}} the comments though. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it was Mikemikev and his sockpuppets. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

No Sources?

Why is nothing in the article intro cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalUsername (talk • contribs)

Standard practice on Wikipedia. The lead summarizes the article body, so the citations are found in the body. - MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not really standard practice (many short articles do have cites in the lead), but certainly the norm in larger and 'more academic' articles since this is the academic convention. See WP:LEADCITE for the long answer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It ought to be standard practice, but it is common on articles where people glance at the lead for confirmation and hit the talk page when that is lacking. ~ cygnis insignis 15:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about it for the most part, but I can see some upsides to doing so on an article that attracts fringe POVs, like this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No "direct" evidence for a genetic component

Breaking this out in a new thread, as the previous discussion has stalled. I want to revisit this claim in the article: The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.

Gardenofaleph made a very strong argument that this sentence, as written, is wrong and is not supported by the sources cited[93]. Others have made similar arguments previously, as shown here[94].

For context, the original phrasing was "no direct evidence for a genetic component", but the word "direct" was removed as alleged MOS:WEASEL wording[95]. The fringe determination in the RfC[96] was also cited in support of removing the word "direct"[97], and the most recent revert said "not good wording, implies there is indirect evidence".[98]

As far as I can tell, no argument has been forwarded that no evidence for a genetic component is supported by the cited sources. To review, here is what the sources say:

  • Hunt: "Nisbett's extreme statement [that the differences are 100% environmental] has virtually no chance of being true...The real debate is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one."
  • Mackintosh: "In spite of claims to the contrary, there is remarkably little evidence that the difference is genetic in origin."
  • Kaplan: "no direct evidence" (original phrasing was a verbatim quote from the Kaplan source)
  • Nisbett et al: "no new direct evidence"

Furthermore, later in the Wikipedia article another quote from Hunt says, in part, "The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence."

So we have all of these highly reliable sources referencing some degree of indirect or circumstantial evidence for a genetic component, including Hunt which is arguably the most reliable tertiary source available. It seems clear the current claim of "no evidence" is false and unsupported by the sources; therefore I propose reverting to the original wording of "no direct evidence", or a similar alternative. I don't find the argument that this would somehow violate the fringe RfC to be convincing. And if it truly is the case where we acknowledge the wording is wrong but determine that it would contravene the RfC to fix it, I would remind editors of WP:IGNORE: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Stonkaments (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I could be convinced we need a modifying word somewhere in that sentence, but I don't think 'evidence' is the right thing to hang it on, because implying a category of indirect or circumstantial evidence leaves open how much (or how little) of it there really is. How about 'The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a significant genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.'? - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
That is a fair point. I would support that change. Stonkaments (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@MrOllie: Thank you for suggesting that wording. I'd also support that change provided that some words are added clarifying that there is also no scientific evidence which racial group would be the beneficiary of any very small genetic difference in intelligence. This was stated in the source quoted above by Generalrelative: "It is also important to note that the direction of the mean difference could favor Africans or Europeans with equal likelihood."[1] Many people would read a statement that there is no "significant" genetic contribution to the black/white IQ gap to mean that there might be a slight amount of genetic inferiority of blacks compared to whites. As the source says, it is equally likely that whites would turn out to be inferior to blacks. Since a genetic component in group IQ differences is a matter of speculation, one can equally speculate that, if whites had been treated over the last 350 years as badly as blacks have been and if blacks had enjoyed the privileges that whites did, then the black-over-white IQ gap would be more than 15 points. In other words, the wording should clearly indicate that there is no scientific evidence of any race being genetically superior or inferior in intelligence to any other race. NightHeron (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
A possible sentence to add: "Nor is there any scientific evidence as to whether people of African descent or European descent would be favored by any very small genetic difference in intelligence that might exist."[2] NightHeron (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Stonkaments, how about "fuck no", as a starting point? You are arguing for the kind of weasel words the racists have been trying to add for a decade. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bird, Kevin A. (2 February 2021). "No support for the hereditarian hypothesis of the Black-White achievement gap using polygenic scores and tests for divergent selection". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. doi:10.1002/ajpa.24216.
  2. ^ Bird, Kevin A. (2 February 2021). "No support for the hereditarian hypothesis of the Black-White achievement gap using polygenic scores and tests for divergent selection". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. doi:10.1002/ajpa.24216.
The framing of this debate as "genetic inferiority" is tiring, inflammatory, and arguably disruptive; speculation about a black-over-white IQ gap of greater than 15 points is unfounded and similarly unproductive. As for the claim that "the direction of the mean difference could favor Africans or Europeans with equal likelihood", one primary source should not be relied upon to the exclusion of the many more reliable secondary and tertiary sources that do not support such a claim. Stonkaments (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Stonkaments: Please stop your personal attacks against me, which violate WP:NPA. I am not being disruptive or inflammatory. In the context of discussing a black-white IQ gap, it is highly misleading to suggest that there might be a very small genetic explanation, since that suggests that a between-group difference, if there is one, would necessarily favor whites. In other words, it reinforces implicit biases against black people. It's not "inflammatory" to acknowledge this reality.
Why are you taking offense and reacting with such hostility to the notion that a racial difference in intelligence could favor blacks? NightHeron (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@MrOllie: @NightHeron: For what it's worth, I oppose these proposed changes in wording, though I recognize that they come from a genuinely collaborative place. As I stated above, pretending that there is a scientific rationale for believing that some genetic link exists between race and intelligence would clearly violate the RfC consensus, as well as the cited sources. The OP is welcome to try to defend their interpretation of WP:IGNORE before WP:AE, but I suspect that the verdict is more likely to be WP:NOTHERE. Generalrelative (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron: I agree wholeheartedly that we need to take special care to avoid any misleading or ambiguous claims in this article. I believe the best way to do that is to be thorough and meticulous in presenting well-sourced information in a clear and neutral way. My specific objection to adding the additional sentence "Nor is there any scientific evidence as to whether people of African descent or European descent would be favored..." is with regards to sourcing and WP:UNDUE—that claim is based solely on one primary source, while we have a number of other more reliable source that do not support that claim. Adding that would make the article worse, not better. I feel that the wording MrOllie proposed is careful and neutral as-is.
@Generalrelative: Can you explain how the proposed change in wording to "no evidence for a significant genetic component" would violate the cited sources? As I mentioned in the OP, I have never seen that argument made, and the excerpts provided by Gardenofaleph indicate the change would in fact align more closely with the sources. Stonkaments (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
(ec)@Generalrelative: I think you're right. Stonkaments' responding to my attempt at a new wording by personally attacking me -- like the SPA's ridiculous attacks on you earlier -- shows that their only purpose here is to try to overturn the consensus and promote racialist hereditarianism. Their repeated violations of WP:NPA show that it was naive on my part to hope that this could end amicably.
As you have pointed out, we're under no obligation to relitigate the RfC in response to the refusal of some people to accept consensus. All of the claims they are making have been made and refuted many times before. NightHeron (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The most important concerns on this article ought to be WP:Verifiability, and the prohibition against misrepresenting sources. Editorial consensus shouldn't be able to overrule both a basic Wikipedia policy, and one of the administrative remedies affecting this article.
MrOllie's proposed change is an improvement over the current wording, but the only source that it summarizes accurately is Mackintosh. The wording "no evidence for a significant genetic component" seems to be making a statement about the possible size of a genetic contribution, and saying that it must be small if it exists. Mackintosh discusses evidence for a very small genetic contribution in his comments about brain volume, and later concludes that there's "remarkably little evidence" for a genetic contribution. But the other sources say that that the evidence for a genetic contribution is indirect or circumstantial, without taking a position about its possible size. Hunt is very critical of all arguments that the genetic contribution is a specific size (including the argument that it's a size of zero), and describes these arguments (p. 436) as "overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side". So I think MrOllie's proposal is not consistent with what most of these sources say, and the original wording "no direct evidence" is the most accurate summary of the sources.
If MrOllie's proposal is the only one that can gain consensus, though, don't count me as opposing it. It's only consistent with one of the four sources, but I guess that's better than contradicting all four of them Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Speculation is not science. Scientists cannot prove that the genetic contribution is zero. Nor can they prove that it's nonzero. Nor can they prove that, if it's small but nonzero, then it is positive. Nor that it's negative. (Positive means that if it weren't for environment blacks would still score below whites on average; negative means that they'd score higher.) This is the point that's made in the source that Aquillion, Generalrelative, and I have cited. It's a recent reliable source, published in the journal of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Nothing in recent reliable sources contradicts that.

Please keep in mind that the RfC is settled. Wikipedia works by consensus, which means that attempting to continually relitigate settled questions is viewed as unconstructive. NightHeron (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To put the same point another way: A measurement is never a single value, it is always a confidence interval. If the genetic effect is zero, what we measure will always be "somewhere between minus epsilon1 and plus epsilon2", with epsilon1 and epsilon2 being positive numbers. All that happens is that the epsilons will get smaller over time. And the people who believe in a non-zero effect will always be able to say "you did not refute the non-zero assumption". This is logically related to Popper's "possibility of refutation" criterion for science: following Popper, the statement "the value is zero" is science because it is refutable by getting an interval which does not contain zero, while the statement "the value is not zero" is not science because it is not refutable. The burden of proof lies with the non-zero crowd, and until they get an interval without zero in it, science says the effect is zero. The same logic applies to lots of other pseudosciences too. The effect of homeopathy is also measured to be "zero plus/minus epsilon". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Now do the environmental effect to see how meaningless this is. Spork Wielder (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying that there is no evidence that Blacks are poorer than whites and that they have poorer access to education in the US? That must mean that someone here must have mastered the feat of editing a parallel universe's Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

None of the studies show there is a consensus that genetics play no role. The study you cited says that the evidence the study uses is compatible with the claim, just as it's compatible with genetics explaining up to 15%. The scientific evidence is compatible with genetics playing a role, which is also what all the (imperfect) surveys of experts suggests is their opinion. I think the wording should be rearticulated as something akin to "the scientific consensus is that the existing evidence is compatible with environmental factors explaining the differences". Any sources cited don't (and as Nighheron said, cannot) rule out genetics playing a role.

There seems to be a misunderstanding where some editors think that "is compatible with environmental explanations" is thought to mean "is incompatible with genetic explanations".

78.16.177.15 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Could you clarify what is the point you're trying to make about speculation vs science and what can be proven? None of the proposed changes to the wording are making any claims as to the level of proof that has been presented, and WP:Verifiability and WP:DUE apply to reliable sources across the board–not only to what science has proven–so I fail to see how those distinctions are relevant here. That said, I could probably get on board with a mention of the uncertainty involved, including Hunt's argument criticizing all estimates of the size of the genetic contribution as "overly preciese", if you think that would be important context. Stonkaments (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see the above comment by Hob Gadling, who explained this better than I've been able to. NightHeron (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. But I have a correction and two additions: "science says the effect is zero" should actually be "science says the effect is either zero or so close to zero that nobody has been able to measure it". Please note that this implies that those who believe it is different from zero do not do so because of solid empirical evidence but because of errors such as overgeneralization, cherry picking, wishful thinking, or for ideological reasons. Here another rule of thumb comes into play: Occam's Razor. If you can explain what we see without the assumption that there is an effect, you should. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The garbled attempts at scientific reasoning have no place here, since it is not the place for us to state our opinions. Nevertheless I can't help but laugh at those saying science proves things, or that an observation must be zero, when the explanation of the observation is the point under discussion, and then getting Occam's Razor exactly backwards by positing mysterious unidentified "environmental variables" to reduce an observed difference to zero. I guess this is why we look at reliable sources, not the intellectual mediocrities and social justice activists that edit Wikipedia. Spork Wielder (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the environmental variables, see my response above.
Those are things scientists understand and apply implicitly. The purpose of explaining them was to make some of the editors understand the parts they are missing when scientific sources are quoted, but it was not to be expected that all of the targets would grasp the concept. I'll just say WP:CIR and drop it.
Reliable sources have been quoted above. It is your choice not to accept what they are saying. Wikipedia's choice is different from yours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hunt says: "Nisbett's extreme statement [that the differences are 100% environmental] has virtually no chance of being true...The real debate is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one." This is arguably the most reliable tertiary source that we have, and presents a clear and direct claim that is as close to a refutation of your argument about the confidence interval as you'll get. Just because he leaves open the remotest of possibilities of the effect being zero (as you say, science can never prove with 100% certainty), per Occam's Razor, the best-guess estimate is a >0% genetic component. However, that claim is covered by the fringe RfC and I am not seeking to re-litigate or overturn that here.
But the disputed sentence in the article makes an even stronger claim, saying there is no evidence for a genetic component. This is not a claim about the confidence interval, and I have yet to see anyone make an argument that it is an accurate representation of the cited sources (Generalrelative made the claim but did not elaborate an argument[99]). This is a problem, especially because there is a special restriction on this page about misrepresenting sources.[100]
refutation of your argument about the confidence interval Wrong. What I wrote was just a further explanation of what NightHeron said, and it is all very basic science and independent of the specific race-and-intelligence example. Hunt's opinion about what Nisbett said does not invalidate it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, "no evidence for a genetic component" is a claim about the confidence interval, namely that it contains the value of zero. If it did not, that would constitute evidence for a genetic component. Can we stop this please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Actually Hunt makes exactly the same point as Hob Gadling has above. Scientists cannot prove that the genetic contribution to the IQ gap is zero because, as Hunt helpfully points out, "doing so would require proving the null hypothesis and, as any good statistics instructor will tell you, that is a logical impossibility." (Hunt p.447) Hereditiarians, on the other hand, could indeed have proved that it was non-zero if that were the case, and have consistently failed to do so. This is the meaning of the Hunt quote: "Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now."
Hunt's opinion about Nisbett's view, on the other hand, is just an opinion. And indeed, it conflicts directly with Mackintosh's opinion that "One could reasonably defend Nisbett's argument that the gap was entirely environmental in origin." (Mackintosh p.344)
One more point before I drop this thread: Hunt and Mackintosh are indeed reliable sources on the state of understanding 10 years ago among psychometiricians because that was their area of professional competence. When they speak about genetics specifically (and today's consensus) however, we should take their views with a grain of salt. If there is anyone who is truly open to persuasion that the hereditarian view is wrong (who is not already convinced by the mountain of evidence already presented), I would suggest reading "Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer" by four prominent geneticists –– Ewan Birney, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford, and Aylwyn Scally: [101] I won't be debating this. I know that it's been attacked by know-nothings on all the usual white-supremacist websites. I am also aware that it's a blog post. While blog posts by established experts are sometimes allowed in articles (per WP:RSSELF), I am not arguing that this source be included in this article. I am legitimately trying to inform those who do not yet know why the overwhelming majority of geneticists believe what they do about this topic. Please consider this my last straw of patience for the current crowd of race/IQ truthers. After this my engagement with specious argumentation will be limited to repeating the results of the RfC and reporting sanctionable behavior if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: Stop what, exactly? You are ok with the fact that the article's claim of no evidence for a genetic component is contradicted by the cited sources? Would you care to address that? I think that is the whole crux of the matter here. Stonkaments (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
It's amazing that these prominent geneticists identified the genes responsible for intelligence and found they were uniformly distributed among races. That's way more advanced the state of research I was aware of. Truly stunning and groundbreaking work that ends the debate. Nobel prize winning stuff. One only wonders why they didn't publish their data and methods, rather than asserting it on a blog. Spork Wielder (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a truly ludicrous mischaracterization of what the geneticists say in the source. Among other things, they explain that socially constructed notions of race do not correspond to genetic divisions between populations, and so the concept of race is not useful in genetics. As before on the R&I talk page, this SPA's comments contain plenty of sarcasm and nothing of value. NightHeron (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
That's exactly what they say. "The genetic variants that are most strongly associated with IQ in Europeans are no more population-specific than any other trait. To put it bluntly, the same genetic variants associated with purportedly higher IQ in Europeans are also present in Africans, and have not emerged, or been obviously selected for, in recent evolutionary history outside Africa." What I find especially fascinating, is that despite their strawman dismissal of racial categories, they're happy to use those very categories to state Europeans and Africans have the same IQ variants. Which is it? Unsurprising that this confused nonsense is unpublished. Their "refutation" of the race concept is particularly funny: "If samples are collected based on pre-defined groupings, it’s entirely unsurprising that the analyses of these samples will return results that identify such groupings. This does not tell us that such taxonomies are inherent in human biology." Are these prominent geneticists unaware of the HGDP? Spork Wielder (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, they are. And they are also aware of the GIGO principle, of Reification, the Law of small numbers, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and the Spurious relationship. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Am I supposed to waste my time explaining why literally none of these things apply? Spork Wielder (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
It is, as Generalrelative just explained, contradicted not by "the cited sources" but by an opinion in one of the cited sources. You people do not understand how scientists talk and what they mean when they do, nor can you tell the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion. We all tried to explain it but seem to have failed. I don't think any further explanations will do anything to change the situation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you point to just one example (of either fact or opinion) from any of the cited sources that supports the assertion that there is no evidence of a genetic component? Stonkaments (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Stonkaments, That is what Hunt is communicating, that there probably is some difference (as there would be between any two randomly selected groups), but it is within the observational error range of the methods we have. This is scientist for 'no evidence' the same way that 'works as well as placebo' is medical researcher for 'it doesn't do anything'. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with that interpretation at all. It seems to me he's saying that it's abundantly clear (based on circumstantial evidence) that there is some genetic component, it's just a question of how much. Stonkaments (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hob Galding, have you looked at the Hunt source itself, and not just the excerpts from it that various editors are posting here? Hunt definitely is not making the argument that you think he is. He gives a detailed summary of the arguments made by hereditarians, and then says "In general, I find their arguments not so much wrong as vastly overstated. But overstatement does not mean that there is no point to them." This is the context in which Hunt goes on to say, "Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained." So in context, it is very clear that Hunt is saying that the hereditarians have presented enough evidence to demonstrate that the differences are not 100% environmental, but not enough evidence to support Rushton and Jensen's 80% genetic "default hypothesis" (which Hunt calls an "excessively precise statement").
As I said in my earlier post, I understand that consensus is opposed to changing this part of the article, or any of the other articles that the same wording cited to the same sources has been copied to. But I'd like everyone at least be aware of the reality of what's happening on these articles, which is that this is a case of consensus superseding the Verifiability policy. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I only know the few parts that have been quoted here, by any party, but nothing from those quotes convinces me that "no evidence" is wrong. What Hunt says still just sounds like his opinion.
Is there evidence that homeopathy works? No. Well, actually yes, if you insist on answering the question literally, but it is really crappy evidence that does not count because it is the kind of evidence you would expect to be found even if the effect does not exist: bad studies without control groups, small studies with very little power, irreproducible statistical flukes. So, effectively, there is no evidence. If the effect exists, it is so tiny that nobody could reliably reproduce it. Still, there are people who are convinced that it must exist, and continue looking for it.
The race-and-intelligence situation looks very much the same to me: If the effect exists, it is so tiny that nobody could reliably reproduce it. Still, there are people who are convinced that it must exist, and continue looking for it. Hunt is one of them. That is how it looks to me from the quotes.
There are many studies that find that IQs are determined mainly by genetic factors. People who understand statistics will know that such results are not natural laws. They are properties of data sets. If you only use university students in your research, or only US citizens, or only US citizens with specific properties, your results will be determined by the distribution of the parameters you are looking at within your data set. If the environmental conditions of your subjects do not vary a lot - e.g. if you do not look at any people who live in actual slums - the influence of environmental factors will be lower than if you did. If you want to interpret data from another source, which includes people living in slums, you cannot just extrapolate from the more-homogenous-populations studies.
But not everyone who uses statistics understands this. Many people, even scientists, view statistics as a tedious tool, a couple of recipes you follow without having to understand what exactly you are doing. Even published scientific studies are sometimes full of rookie mistakes. Statistical significance is one of the things used by thousands of scientists who do not understand what it really means - see Replication crisis. I think those IQs-are-determined-by-genetic-factors studies are misleading many such math-averse scientists into taking their results for real effects instead of just properties of data sets. Hunt sounds like one of those. Unless he gives actual results from valid studies with the right scope, "no evidence" seems right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hrm... Hunt was the president of the International Society for Intelligence Research, which has historically been at least amicable to the hereditarian view (ie. willing to have its more out-there advocates on the editorial board of its journal). And just reading the section of his book being cited here I see several eyebrow-raising things - he devotes an entire aside to James Watson's controversial comments, where he defends them as factually accurate on every point.Note (Including the bit where Watson said His hope is that everyone is equal, but “people who have had to deal with black employees find that this is not true.” Hunt helpfully notes that this is an accurate statement because "As references in this chapter have shown, in the United States the work performance evaluations of African Americans are, on the average, lower than the evaluations received by white workers. This is true for both objective and subjective evaluations. The difference is much less than the difference in test score averages." I couldn't resist including that as a footnote.) He also gives massive amounts of focus to Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn. I would also point out that while he presents himself as a neutral observer who refuses to take sides, [102] describes him as a heriditarian, which pretty closely lines up with his career, expressed sympathies, and, of course, stated opinions. Like... obviously scholars exist who support the hereditarian position, but that doesn't make it the mainstream consensus. Hunt doesn't present what he's saying as the mainstream consensus, he just says it's what he believes. And it is fairly notable that even the scholars supporting that perspective tend to cite the same small number of people, which doesn't exactly support the argument that their views represent a broad scientific consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess the peer reviewed literature on the heritability of intelligence is written by people who just don't understand. Luckily we have Wikipedia editor Hob Gadling to show us the truth. Spork Wielder (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Not "the peer reviewed literature", only part of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So where does this leave us? To summarize:

  • The current wording, no evidence for a genetic component, fails WP:VERIFIABILITY and misrepresents the cited sources, all of which reference some level of indirect or circumstantial evidence for a genetic component. The only argument made that the sources do in fact support the current wording came from (in my opinion) a misinterpretation of Hunt's views tied to a tangential discussion on confidence intervals around the null hypothesis, speculation vs. science, and facts vs. opinions.
  • It looks like there is strong opposition to the original wording, no direct evidence of a genetic component, despite being the most faithful representation of the cited sources.
  • There has been some qualified support for no evidence of a significant genetic component. While still not an entirely accurate representation of the sources, it would be an improvement.

Can we work towards building consensus on how to incorporate a change to no evidence of a significant genetic component? What additional context or qualifying statements, if any, would be needed to go along with that? Stonkaments (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That summary is obviously biased. The truth of the matter is that the discussion has (1) two editors plus one sarcastic SPA who dislike the conclusion of the RfC on race and intelligence and want to undermine it by changes in wording, and (2) five editors who have been arguing against this. A consensus already exists on Wikipedia, and it does not support introducing weasle-words that suggest that there's scientific evidence that some races are genetically inferior to others. NightHeron (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we really vote to ignore core policies? Neat. Spork Wielder (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I moved your response where it belongs: after the contribution it responded to. But consensus is not a vote, and your interpretation of the source is just your interpretation while the consensus has a different one. So, your problem, not ours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Why should "Hunt's views" be relevant? Science is about results, not about views. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The views in Hunt's Intelligence are relevant because:
  1. It is being cited as a source (and his views are being used to defend the current wording, when in fact they argue against it)
  2. It is considered a reliable tertiary source, which Wikipedia policy notes "can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics" and "may be helpful in evaluating due weight"[103]. Stonkaments (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It is a tertiary source for the stuff Hunt gets from other sources and summarizes, but a primary source for Hunt's own view about it. Which part of "Science is about results, not about views" did you not understand? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have one last proposal that I hope might be amenable to everyone, before I bring this to dispute resolution. Would there be support for simply removing the sentence entirely? The sentence that follows, Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap, seems to provide an adequate summary of that section and the current scientific consensus, without the issues of verifiability and misrepresenting sources that have been brought up here. Stonkaments (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I oppose deleting that sentence, which correctly represents current scientific consensus. I would also urge you to drop the stick rather than taking a matter to dispute resolution that was already litigated in great detail in the RfC and elsewhere, including this talk page. NightHeron (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I also oppose deleting that sentence, and I reject the premise that it misrepresents the sources. - MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
As pointed out in earlier discussion, there is no source that states the existence of such consensus, and all the surveys of experts suggest this is not the case. Even if these surveys like this are imperfect, the burden of proof is upon those claiming consensus is 100% environmental to provide better sources with more rigorous methodology which they have been unable to do. Indeed there seems to be inability to cite any source even with less rigorous methodology that would suggest such consensus exists. It seems people mistake "compatible with entirely environmental explanation" as "incompatible with any genetic factor". I support changing the sentence to something that mentions that something along the lines of "the differences are compatible with environmental explanations".

2001:14BB:70:C4C5:A041:ECC7:B828:6037 (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You're mixing up two very different statements. No one is saying that the scientific evidence is "incompatible with any genetic factor", which would be the same as saying that science has proved that it's zero. Neither is science incompatible with the existence of Bigfoot.
You, too, please drop the stick. NightHeron (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
So then we agree that at least some experts think the evidence is at least compatible with a genetic factor? It's kind of an academic question, because we can all see that some do. Anyway, this is clearly going nowhere and needs to go to dispute resolution. Spork Wielder (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You still do not get it. All experts think that, and they will all continue to think it forever, because there is no possible evidential situation which would be incompatible with it. That is trivially true and does not need to be mentioned in the article.
Yes, this is going nowhere because it already has gone somewhere and is there now. The dispute resolution has already happened and does not need to happen again. That is why, as NightHeron said, you should drop the stick. EOD as far as I am concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have raised this issue here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Race_and_IQ:_"no_evidence"_for_genetic_component? Stonkaments (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Direct vs indirect evidence

Flynn's 1980 book "Race, IQ and Jensen" has a chapter on Direct evidence and indirect. Flynn says direct evidence favors an environmental explanation, indirect evidence favors a hereditarian explanation. He says direct evidence overrules indirect evidence. As making a distinction between these two types seems to be a thing in this field of research, it would be a mistake to conflate "evidence" with either "direct evidence" or "indirect evidence". When a source says "direct evidence", Wikipedia should also call it "direct evidence" in the article. --Angillo (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"Current" scientific consensus

MPants at work's recent edit has removed the qualifying word "current" regarding the scientific consensus, with the justification being that there's no need to paint this as temporary when it's not; the data that's evinced this will not change with time. Could you please explain what is the support for the claim that the scientific consensus is permanent and will not change with time? That strikes me as an inaccurate interpretation of the relevant sources, as well as a misunderstanding of the scientific process and the dissenting view as an alternative theoretical formulation on the spectrum of fringe theories (WP:FRINGE/PS). Stonkaments (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Scientific consensus can always change. I took MPants' edit summary to be an argument rather than a statement of absolute fact. To me, the fact that scientific consensus is changeable is a good reason never to include the word current before it, because the effect is to cast doubt on a particular consensus. There's no good reason to do so here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Cici & Williams 2009 is the only cited source that makes a claim about the scientific consensus. They say: There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences.[104] (They also say that "plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded", and note that considerations for what is "acceptable" or "politically correct" may influence the debate.)
Per WP:RS/AC, Wikipedia's claims about the scientific consensus should match what is indicated in the sources. The fact that the source explicitly calls it an emerging consensus is important, and Wikipedia should reflect that. Stonkaments (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec)I'm still waiting for some explanation as to why the qualifier "currently" is necessary that doesn't boil down to instilling doubt as to it's accuracy in the reader's mind. Your argument above about consensus changing is exactly that; the reader should doubt it because it might change. Only this is Wikipedia; we don't work to instill doubt about the veracity of scientific consensus, we simply state it as fact.
As to your followup implying that this consensus doesn't even exist, I'd point out that you've lost this argument over at WP:NORN already, and others have lost this same argument countless times. This question has a binary answer, and without demonstrating that most researchers believe that genetics explains it, that leaves only the environmental explanation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
That source was published 12 years ago. The "emerging" consensus has by now emerged. The trouble with the term current consensus is that it suggests not only that the consensus was different in the past (which is true) but also that it is likely to be different in the future (which is false). It is theoretically conceivable that the consensus (like any consensus, e.g., the consensus about anthropogenic climate change) will change, but we don't say "the current scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real." The word current doesn't belong in either case. NightHeron (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide any sources that support your view of the current scientific consensus? Stonkaments (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide any sources that support your implicit assertion that this consensus is likely to change? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The qualifier "current" (or ideally, "emerging") is necessary in order to accurately represent what the source says about the scientific consensus. Per WP:RS/AC: Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.
I am not making the assertion that the consensus is likely to change; I'm simply arguing that consensus can change, and that we should faithfully represent what the sources say about the current state of the scientific consensus. I understand the cited source is 12 years old, so a newer source would be much appreciated, but we can't simply assert that the emerging consensus has "emerged" without reliable sourcing. Stonkaments (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The qualifier "current" (or ideally, "emerging") is necessary in order to accurately represent what the source says about the scientific consensus. Insisting that something is necessary without providing a coherent explanation of why it is necessary, when you have been asked by at least two people to provide a coherent explanation of why it is necessary will accomplish nothing except undermining your own credibility. I should note that the diametric disconnect between what you claim to believe and what you argue for on these talk pages does much the same. If you're having trouble getting at my meaning, perhaps a more colloquial term will express what I'm getting at better: The more you talk, the less convincing you get. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
"The fact that the source explicitly calls it an emerging consensus is important, and Wikipedia should reflect that." What is unclear? Stonkaments (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
You want to know what's unclear about it? Whether it's true. Your insistence that it's important isn't enough to go on. BTW: Richard Lewontin said that the environmental explanation was "the present egalitarian cosnensus" as long ago as 1970. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Stonkaments' wikilawyering has got to stop. The obvious purpose of trying to put a word like "current" or "emerging" in front of "consensus" is to plant doubt in the reader's mind. The RfC at WP:FTN ([105]) considered many sources, including statements by major scientific organizations, in reaching the conclusion that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. This does not have to be relitigated every time Stonkaments or another opponent of the RfC tries to weaken statements of that consensus in R&I and related articles. NightHeron (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I just posted a source from 1970 that clearly stated it was the current consensus even then, so if that's not the end of it, we might have to take this to ANI. I mean, there are only three possibilities:
1. It's controversial. The sheer weight of the evidence in favor of the environmental hypothesis, and the sheer weight of evidence undermining the genetic hypothesis falsifies this option.
2. The consensus is that it's genetic. There's not a shred of evidence for this.
3. The consensus is that it's environmental. The evidence supports this overwhelmingly, researchers who disagree with this are "ostracized" and "censured", and we've got two sources straight up saying "this is the consensus", one from 1970, and another from 2009. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
FYI, here is the entire quote from Lewontin's paper: "Such a conclusion is so clearly at variance with the present egalitarian consensus and so clearly smacks of a racist elitism, whatever its merit or motivation, that a very careful analysis of the argument is in order."
This source supports the statement that Jensen's 1969 paper went against the scientific consensus that existed fifty years ago, but it does not support the statement that there is (in the present) "no evidence" for Jensen's position, which is what the Wikipedia article says. Lewontin's article doesn't use the phrase "no evidence" or any similar phrase at all. Whether a hypothesis is correct or incorrect, and whether or not evidence exists for it, are two separate questions. Sometimes there is evidence for both of two competing hypothesis, but the evidence is stronger for one than for the other.
I'm not trying to change the article's text at this stage, because I know last year's RFC doesn't allow it to be changed. So this is just another reminder that despite how many times this has been discussed, the phrase "no evidence for a genetic component" (as opposed to "no direct evidence", which is what the article used to say) still isn't consistent with what most of its sources say. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll just pop in here to note that Gardenofaleph's "reminder" does not represent what most of us think is the case, per the recent RfC at NOR/N and the talk page threads leading up to it. Indeed it has been explained again and again how and why the sources support the language "no evidence for a genetic component". This will not be relitigated here. It just needs to be noted and then moved on from. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You've already had your argument rejected by the community. More than once. WP:HORSE. Move on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Stonkaments, no. Repeat until heat death of universe. Just: no. This is precisely the kind of weaselry that racists have been trying to insert here for a decade and more. In the absence of a credible racially-neutral way of measuring intelligence objectively, there is no way of separating racial variation from systemic bias. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Your opinion is at variance with mainstream psychology. Nuclear Milkman (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)— Nuclear Milkman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No it is not: it is entirely in line with the strong scientific consensus. The group that declared themselves to be "the mainstream" are the opposite, they are a tiny minority. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Guys, remember when the racists got 52 professors to sign a statement saying that the racist view was mainstream, then somebody demonstrated that 80% of those professors weren't even experts in the subject, and the APA then issued a comprehensive report basically calling that first statement bullshit? Yeah, good times. Good times. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Nuclear Milkman a likely sock? They created the account today and have a total of 7 edits, all to this page, and all but the first have been disruptive. NightHeron (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • For anyone still following this: Yesterday, I added Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns to the list of sources supporting the statement about the scientific consensus, as it was a work specifically commissioned to address this very question, by the organization which is best suited to be the definitive voice on the state of the science. There is literally no better possible source for this claim. I would advise anyone reading this to refuse to discuss the issue unless and until an editor who disagrees comes equipped with sources of a similar quality that explicitly refute this statement on the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms of Intelligence as a biologically defined concept.

Surely these criticisms would be better largely left to the relevant linked articles: Human intelligence, Intelligence quotient, and G factor?

This article leaps straight from a short history of discussions of race and intelligence into questioning the nature of and validity of measuring intelligence itself. It seems odd and ill-prioritised to the casual reader.

Rather than having the 'history', 'who might have funded what' and 'what is intelligence anyway?' portions at the head of the article, how about reordering it to feature the contemporary research, results and conclusions first? For someone dipping into an encyclopedia to learn about the links (or lack of) between race and intelligence, and any reasons there might be for such links, this would be a far more useful approach.

Granted, criticism of the concept 'race' must be featured, but nobody denies that intelligence exists as a scientific concept.

A 'Controversy' or 'Criticisms' section further down would seem sensible, as this seems to be the standard format on Wikipedia. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:A111:F246:3AB6:3EDD (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

To each their own, I suppose. I'll just correct a couple of misconceptions here:
1) nobody denies that intelligence exists as a scientific concept That really depends on what you mean by "intelligence" and what you mean by "scientific concept". The problem is with reducing intelligence to a measurable quantity like IQ. Scientific consensus on the construct validity of IQ is summed up by Wayne Weiten (quoted in the validity section of our IQ article): "IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable." In my view the section we have here deals with this issue appropriately, and it is appropriate to introduce the concept in a nuanced way before detailing the science on the concept.
2) A 'Controversy' or 'Criticisms' section further down would seem sensible, as this seems to be the standard format on Wikipedia. Not so. See WP:NOCRIT. It's just an essay but one with enough community buy-in that it can be considered a norm. For all the reasons discussed in that essay, a criticism section would be inappropriate here. Generalrelative (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The section in question is not a general criticism section but rather it relates to whether the terms race and intelligence in the article title have any clear scientific meanings. So the section logically belongs where it is, near the beginning of the main body. NightHeron (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the section belongs here. This article is about the intersection of two concepts, and the validity and applicability of those concepts is important to both the nature of this intersection and the scientific consensus concerning it.
A criticism section would not suite this article, given that one of the concepts (race) is biologically meaningless and the other (a measurable g-factor) is quite controversial. We'd essentially have to repeat the rest of the article in that section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

AE request opened

I have opened a request that affects this page on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You can find it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Race_and_Intelligence. - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Please note that I have modified the article AND talk page to Extended Confirmed Protection (WP:ECP) as per that discussion, for a period of 6 months. At the end of that time, the article will revert to no protection, so I recommend starting a new report at WP:AE about two weeks prior to the expiration of protection, so that a discussion can be had regarding the problems (if any) and usefulness of ECP on this article, and so that appropriate protection can be applied before expiration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Dennis, I really appreciate this, especially given the way that each round of drama has a way of stirring up the IPs and socks, and the fact that a new round of drama has begun. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, the next 6 months will be revealing. Feel free to ping me when that time comes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Mackintosh 1998

I've dug up an old copy of IQ and Human Intelligence if anyone is interested in exactly what it says, or how else it can be used in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixing "harvtxt error"

Does anyone here know how to fix the "harvtxt error" message that appears after each instance of the inline citation Nisbett et al. (2012a)? I can't figure it out. Thanks y'all, Generalrelative (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It's because the same citation template is repeated in the article in two different places. I will try to fix it. (There's also a second example, involving Dickens & Flynn 2006.) --JBL (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe I have succeeded, but please double-check that I haven't screwed anything up. (There are many more instances of duplicative referencing, but no others that conflict with how sfn and the harv templates figure out what paper is being referenced.) --JBL (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Generalrelative (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_102&oldid=1087972550"