Misplaced Pages

Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:40, 12 July 2013 view sourceMaunus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,261 edits →The lead requires major changes← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:17, 9 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,966 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 104) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{talk header|search=yes}} {{talk header|search=yes}}
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} {{Race and intelligence talk page notice}}
{{trolling}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD | action1 = AFD
Line 6: Line 8:
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence
| action1result = kept | action1oldid = 14746008 | action1result = kept | action1oldid = 14746008

| action2 = PR | action2 = PR
| action2date = 2005-06-24 | action2date = 2005-06-24
Line 12: Line 13:
| action2result = reviewed | action2result = reviewed
| action2oldid = 14796977 | action2oldid = 14796977

| action3 = FAC | action3 = FAC
| action3date = 2005-07-18 | action3date = 2005-07-18
Line 18: Line 18:
| action3result = failed | action3result = failed
| action3oldid = 18607122 | action3oldid = 18607122

| action4 = GAN | action4 = GAN
| action4date = 2006-08-25 | action4date = 2006-08-25
Line 24: Line 23:
| action4result = failed | action4result = failed
| action4oldid = 71769667 | action4oldid = 71769667

| action5 = AFD | action5 = AFD
| action5date = 2006-12-04 | action5date = 2006-12-04
Line 30: Line 28:
| action5result = kept | action5result = kept
| action5oldid = 91697500 | action5oldid = 91697500

| action6 = AFD | action6 = AFD
| action6date = 2011-04-11 | action6date = 2011-04-11
| action6link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (3rd nomination) | action6link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (3rd nomination)
| action6result = kept | action6result = kept
| action6oldid = 423539956 | action6oldid = 423539956
| action7 = DRV
| action7date = 2020-02-24
| action7link = Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12
| action7result = overturned
| action8 = AFD
| action8date = 2020-02-29
| action8link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)
| action8result = kept
| currentstatus = FGAN | currentstatus = FGAN
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=start|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=start|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=start|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{annual readership |scale=log}}
<!-- This comments out the FAQ, which no longer reflects current consensus after the ArbCom case--discuss on talk page to establish new consensus for August 2010 and beyond
{{Press
{{FAQ|small=no|collapsed=no}}
| title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed
-->
| org = ]
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
| date = 18 July 2013
| accessdate = 18 July 2013
| author2 = Doug Gross
| title2 = Wiki wars: The 10 most controversial Misplaced Pages pages
| org2 = ]
| url2 = http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/24/tech/web/controversial-wikipedia-pages/index.html
| date2 = July 24, 2013
| quote2 = "Circumcision and 'race and intelligence', both with obvious controversy attached, made the list, alongside a possibly more surprising page: a list of professional wrestlers on the roster of World Wrestling Entertainment."
| archiveurl2 = http://archive.is/ZRDW3
| archivedate2 = July 27, 2013
| accessdate2 = July 27, 2013

| title3 = Misplaced Pages wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets
| url3 = https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets
| org3 = ]
| author3 = Justin Ward
| date3 = March 12, 2018
| accessdate3 = March 17, 2018
| archiveurl3 = https://web.archive.org/web/20180312150230/https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets
| archivedate3 = March 12, 2018
| quote3 = "In the article on 'race and intelligence', relatively equal weight is given to the two sides of the debate — hereditarian and environmentalist — though environmentalism is the mainstream perspective in psychology."
|author4 = Shuichi Tezuka
|title4 = Introducing Justapedia
|date4 = December 11, 2023
|org4 = ]
|url4 = https://quillette.com/2023/12/11/introducing-justapedia/
|lang4 =
|quote4 =
|archiveurl4 = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. -->
|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate4 = December 11, 2023
}}
{{section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 93 |counter = 104
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive index |mask=Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive index |mask=Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
}} }}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
<!-- This comments out the additional archives, which were last updated in June 2006 and don't reflect the results of the ArbCom case in August 2010

{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
! align="center" | Additional archives
----
|-
|''']''' (last updated June 2006)
|-
|
]

]

]

|}

end of commenting out old additional archives -->
{{New discussion}}
<!-- Please: place new messages at bottom of page. -->

== Rewriting brain size ==

I've decided to make another attempt to rewrite the brain size section. This section was removed (again) as part of Killerchihuahua's massive revert. I think most of the other problems caused by her revert have been fixed now, but this one hasn't yet.

I don't think it's necessary to wait for a consensus before restoring the section, because there never was a consensus to remove it in the first place. If anything, there was a consensus that it belonged in the article and that problems with it should be fixed by editing it instead of repeatedly blanking it. However, I am rewriting the section to address the concerns expressed about it by other editors. Aprock said the section was non neutral because it left out the Hunt and Carlson source, so I'm adding that source. Someone also complained about the using of the Jensen and Johnson paper because it's a primary source, so I'm replacing that with a secondary source. The rewritten section is sourced entirely to secondary sources.

Like before, further improvements to this section are welcome. If anyone thinks the section has remaining problems, I encourage you to fix them by editing it. ] (]) 08:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

:Giving brains size that much space seems pretty clearly undue weight, and there are still concerns about synthesis mentioned above. It would be better to write up on the talk page on in your user space what you have in mind to add, and then let people discuss it. Just adding it is likely to be disruptive. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::It's taking up less space than it used to. It's less space than "Caste like minorities", a topic that is less supported and studied aspect of race and intelligence than brain size is.

::Tom, with all due respect, your suggested method of "write up on the talk page" has already been attempted. But unfortunately some have shown that they will refuse to accept a "Brain Size" section under any circumstances which highlights a deep problem. The section was removed under dubious circumstances 2 1/2 months ago under the impression that the removal is meant to only be temporary. But some editors saw this as an opportunity to try to make the removal permanent by blocking and hindering any effort toward its recreation. There are some editors of this article that wish either to reduce "genetic arguments" section to a stub or remove it entirely calling genetic arguments ]. The "fringe" debate has been rehashed and rebutted repeatedly over the years but that hasn't stopped some editors from using this argument and then wrongly use it as justification to either delete or block relevant cited material that exists in ] and meets ] that they simply ]. In the past 2 months, three entire subsections under "Genetic Arguments" have been removed. Whereas less relevant and supported subsections than the ones removed in the environmental section like "Logographic writing system" and "Black subculture" still remains. The very uneven approach of the editing of this article is extremely troublesome and in turn ] in heavy jeopardy. This is a difficult article to edit as there is no consensus to the cause of "race and intelligence" in the scientific fields and because for some editors it's difficult to put their own strong personal opinions aside. But I would encourage editors to try to approach this article more evenhandedly despite what their own personal positions may be. ] (]) 17:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
=== Still violates policy ===
The section is, once again, violating several core policies. Only the views of an ] are ] and continues to ].
*The first paragraph is simply a vehicle for 1) repeating "hereditarian" claims that anyone finding fault with their conclusions is motivated by "political correctness" and 2) using statistical correlations to imply genetic causality when in fact no genetic mechanism as ''ever'' been found.
*The of the second paragraph is from the (as discussed ).
<blockquote class="toccolours" style=" float:none; margin-left:30px; display:table;">
] {{hilite|<s>writes,</s>|#F2CEE0}}{{hilite|writing about the research of hereditarians in this area, states|PaleGreen}} that because brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites, and is almost entirely genetically determined, race differences in average brain size are {{hilite|therefore|PaleGreen}} an important argument for a {{hilite|possible |PaleGreen}}genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However brain images are {{hilite|<s>very</s>|#F2CEE0}}expensive to obtain, {{hilite|<s>so</s>|#F2CEE0}}much of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, which only measures brain size indirectly {{hilite|and thus makes the data less reliable. Hunt notes that, even when combined|PaleGreen}}{{hilite|<s>Combined</s>|#F2CEE0}} with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data {{hilite|still just|PaleGreen}} accounts for a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a {{hilite|<s>small</s>|#F2CEE0}}portion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.<nowiki><ref>{{harvnb|Hunt|2010|pp=433–434}}</ref></nowiki>
</blockquote>
*The third paragraph, also discussed , misrepresents Hunt & Carlson (2007) and appears to exist as an excuse to mention Rushton and his "hypothesis."
Three times in as many months this section has been returned to the article after having been removed for violating a variety of core policies. I suggest the editor self revert this latest restoration and attempt to gain consensus for a version that is aligned with the policies of this project. {{mdash}} ] (]) 02:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
:Strongly disagree. The viewpoint is not of the "extreme minority". Hunt and Carlson is considered a well respected secondary source. Their viewpoint is also neutral in regards to "brain size". Certainly doesn't match the hereditarian arguments of Templer, Gottfredson nor the environmentalist arguments of Wicherts, Cernovsky. It quite thoroughly explained Hunt and Carlson's positions. In accordance with ], other viewpoints from both the hereditarian and environmentalist viewpoints should be added as well so the section is certainly not yet complete but it is a decent start.

:All you've done so far is criticize every version of "Brain Size" to date without making any improvements of your own. You're more than welcome to make adjustments, changes, additions that you feel are necessary. Is there a reason why you've yet to do this?
:There is one problem I do see however. The phrase "writing about the research of hereditarians in the area" should be removed. Hunt and Carlson isn't writing on behalf of hereditarians here. Their statements are their own which they specifically cite their reasoning based on facts that are already known per McDaniels's meta study. Also note that every ] on this topic whether from the hereditarian, environmentalist, or neutral perspective, is going to mention Rushton in some form or another as he's done more research on this specific inquiry than anyone else so mentioning Rushton is unavoidable here. Environmentalists like Wicherts and Cernovsky also mention Rushton very heavily. So to try to avoid mentioning Rushton in this subsection would be a complete violation of ] when all the reliable sources of this subsection mentions him so heavily. ] (]) 03:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

:ArtifexMayhem, I hope you realise that you are no longer presenting anything remotely resembling a compelling argument. Just saying "this is essentially unchanged from the previous version" means nothing. In one of the earlier discussions you linked to, you pointed out some ways the previous version could give a better summary of Hunt, and the changes you're highlighting from that version were made by The Devil's Advocate precisely to address those concerns. Did you not notice that? You're also claiming it's a problem to mention Hunt and Carlson commenting on Rushton, or Jerison commenting on the effects of politics, but these are simply what the sources say. All of these are high-quality secondary sources. You make a big fuss whenever other editors cite a source while leaving out something you agree with in it, so it just shows bias for you to complain about us including the parts of the sources you don't like. ] (]) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
::ArtifexMayhem, your recent edits have been helpful but there's still one issue. You appear to misinterpret Hunt's meaning. As previously stated, Hunt's comments about brain size research regarding brain size to intelligence correlation and brain size being almost entirely genetically determined, is not based on research by Rushton and Jensen. He is not speaking on behalf of Rushton and Jensen here. He first states what Rushton and Jensen's argument is and then he is giving his own reasons why Rushton and Jensen's argument, that "differences between groups in test scores is due to differences in brain size" merits an investigation. Hunt cites (Baaré et al 2001) and Hunt and Carlson cites (McDaniel 2005). ] (]) 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
:::No. He is specifically discussing ideas put forth by R&J. Hunt and Carlson, in a paper that is not a review of the research, use R&J as an example to make a point about doing research not about brain size. They explicitly make no comment on its merits. {{mdash}} ] (]) 00:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)\
::::No. Hunt and Carlson are explaining why Rushton's argument is useful. They cite both (McDaniel 2005) and (Baaré et al 2001) as part of their explanation.

::::<i>"Brain size is almost entirely genetically determined. (Baaré et al 2001)" -- "Human Intelligence" Earl Hunt. pg. 433
::::"Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005)" -- Hunt and Carlson 2007</i>

::::Neither of these statements are attributed to Rushton or Jensen. These two facts are independent from Rushton or Jensen. Hunt and Carlson are explaining why they feel Rushton's argument would be an "important link" or "useful principle".

::::"Therefore, evidence for substantial differences between racial/ethnic groups in brain size would be an important link in an argument for a genetic basis for group differences in intelligence."--Earl Hunt

::::"Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference."--Hunt and Carlson
::::] (]) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Even with the recent mitigating improvements, devoting an entire subsection to brain size is undue weight. It should not have been restored; a sentence or two could appear elsewhere in the article. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
:How is it undue weight when it is such an intricate part of the hereditarian argument and mentioned by every hereditarian in the field with so many ] that exist that try to explain it from all different perspectives? I don't understand how "Logographic writing system", which is not even argued by most environmentalists, should stay but "Brain Size" which is argued by every single hereditarian in the field should not. A better understanding of the current debate that exists between hereditarians and environmentalists in published papers need to be had in order to properly utilize due and undue weight for this article. ] (]) 23:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
::It's ] because the argument is only supported by an extremely small number of social scientists and goes againts all mainstrem science on the topic. This article is not entitled "hereditarians vs. environmentalists". And who are these "environmentalists"? The argument that we should have this section based on the existence of some other unrelated section is not supported by any known policy. {{mdash}} ] (]) 00:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Please enough of the "extremely small number of social scientists" or "fringe" fallacy. This has been debated and rebutted every single time. For such research to constantly pass peer review and get published in major mainstream scientific journals time and time again proves definitively it is not the "small" figure you claim it to be. If it exists repeatedly in ], then it belongs in this article and must be given proper due weight and cannot be dismissed so easily. ] (]) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:::You seem to be ignoring the fact that the section is now cited entirely to major secondary sources. There are no sources that are more mainstream than Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence or the Handbook of Intelligence. Why do you have a problem with Misplaced Pages presenting what's in mainstream textbooks? When you advocate removing the section because you say it presents a viewpoint held by only a tiny minority, you are contradicted by the sources that it's currently using.
:::Note: this is Akuri logged out. ] (]) 02:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
::::Hunt explaining the views of a tiny minority does not change the weight those views should be given nor does it imply that Hunt finds merit in said views. {{mdash}} ] (]) 02:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::I fail to see why it matters whether he does or not. The bottom line is that the section currently summarises what's presented in mainstream secondary sources, and you want to remove it. You evidently think the content of the article should not be based on what secondary sources say, so what do you think it should be based on? ] (]) 03:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::Articles should be based on ''accurate'' representations of secondary sources with the intent of conveying mainstream views on a particular topic. The weight afforded any particular view is not determined by mere coverage. It is determined by the level of ''support'' the view finds within the community of those practiced in the apropriate arts. {{mdash}} ] (]) 04:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::You don't appear to have an accurate gauge of what the mainstream views and positions are. Mainstream does not mean "thinks like me". The study of brain size and its possible relationship to race and intelligence has been and still remains a line of inquiry for not just hereditarians in the field, but environmentalists as well. The two positions stated by Hunt, that individual brain size is related to intelligence and that individual brain size is nearly entirely genetic, are not only extremely mainstream but are nearly universally accepted in the scientific fields. The possible role this plays in race and intelligence certainly remains in debate but even environmentalists such as Wicherts and Neisser have acknowledged the existence of average brain size differences between races. Although they tend to prefer possible environmental explanations for it and/or argue that the average brain size differences between races are small and can only explain a fraction of the observed IQ differences between races. But the point is that Hunt's arguments are based on positions that are known and very well accepted in the scientific fields and are certainly mainstream. ] (]) 10:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::It's not Hunt's argument. {{mdash}} ] (]) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::But ] applies to the views presented in the authorial voice of the article, not to elements that occur in the direct or indirect discourse of these views. The featured article ] has a section on occasionalism and says: "Occasionalism is the view espoused by Nicholas Malebranche that asserts that all supposedly causal relations between physical events, or between physical and mental events, are not really causal at all. While body and mind are different substances, causes (whether mental or physical) are related to their effects by an act of God's intervention on each specific occasion." No reliable sources actually support occasionalism. But that's fine because occasionalism is not the view being given weight; occasionalism is given no weight. What's being given weight is the view that Malebranche espoused occasionalism and that occasionalism implies those things. If ] applied to such elements, then this encyclopedia could never report on the discredited views of others. At ] it says "The Holocaust and Germany's war in the East was based on Hitler's long-standing view that the Jews were the great enemy of the German people and that Lebensraum was needed for the expansion of Germany." Here the view that the Jews were as such is presented, but not in the authorial voice of the article, only in indirect discourse. No reliable source actually supports that view, but that's alright because the view is given no weight. A view can be mentioned without being given any weight. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Yes and as noted by another editor ; "''a sentence or two could appear elsewhere in the article.''". {{mdash}} ] (]) 22:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Research on brain size cannot be adequately explained in one or two sentences. There's also far too many ] on the topic to give it such little weight. If the argument is that brain size shouldn't have its own subsection, we would need to completely reevaluate what other subsections merits deletion based on the established cutoff. This would include the removal of the subsections logographic writing system, caste-like minorities, cultural traditions valuing education, group subculture, and possibly others. None of these 4 subsections matches the level of research and inquiry as brain size nor have as many ] as brain size. These would all have to be removed as well if brain size is removed. ] (]) 23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::No doubt it can be a neutral description of what people say. Since it looks like few researchers say it, it shouldn't have its own section, no matter how neutrally written. If that's true of other sections, those should also be replaced with one or two sentences. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::So what are the minimum number of reliable sources discussing an aspect of a topic needed for permitting a separate section on that aspect? And what are the minimum number of reliable sources discussing as aspect of a topic needed for permitting two sentences on that aspect, or three, four, etc.? --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 15:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not to tell you something you already know, but that's a matter for editorial judgement, where we reach consensus through discussion. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
{{od}} The assertion that only "few researchers" say it is absolutely false. Brain size is frequently mentioned in many comprehensive overview of race and intelligence. Whether from hereditarians or environmentalists. Off the top of my head, researchers that have mentioned brain size in regards to the race and intelligence debate includes Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Wicherts, Cernovsky, Neisser, Gottfreson, Hunt, Carlson, Cain, Vanderwolf, Templer, Nyborg, Ankney, Murray, Gould, Nisbett. Many from very reputable mainstream scientific journals. This is not "few" and I'm befuddled that some are still trying to argue this. It is highly relevant to the article and there is way too many ] on this subject to try to censor it out of the article. The real problem is that brain size currently doesn't have ENOUGH weight. The hereditarian and environmentalist positions are still omitted and needs to be added to the subsection per ] and ]. ] (]) 22:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know that. I actually don't think this encyclopedia should have an editorial size limit. I think if an aspect of a topic is discussed in reliable sources then it is worthy of being included at lengths up to the length that is adequate for fully describing its treatment in those sources. If an article becomes too long for technical reasons, it can then be split into sub-articles. I think this was the original and still best vision for this encyclopedia. I think if clearly reliable sources like recent publications in academic presses by tenured professors at accredited institutions which have not been subjects of any controversy of academic integrity include coverage of aspects of a topic, then this encyclopedia does right if it mirrors that coverage. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 02:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

== Creating a meta-analysis of IQ studies ==

The section "United States test scores" goes into the IQ gap a little, but there are many more studies on the gap in the US. What if on a comprehensive table of all the available studies/meta-analyses was started? Would that be appropriate? It could show the year of the study, the sample sizes, the average reported IQ for the group being compared, the IQ test used, etc. E.g:


== Piffer (2015) ==
{| class="wikitable"
Piffer (2015) found differing frequencies of cognition and IQ-enhancing genes in different racial populations:
|-
! # !! Test year !! White n !! Black n !! Test !! Black IQ !! Author(s)
|-
| 1 || 2002 || 343 || 1,420 || WISC-IV || 88 || Dickens and Flynn (2006) <ref>Dickens,W.T.,&Flynn, J.R. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples.</ref>
|}


https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2015-piffer.pdf
Citation for #1: '''Dickens,W.T.,&Flynn, J.R. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples.''' ] (]) 13:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


] (]) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
: This isn't our job on Misplaced Pages. What is our job is building a free online encyclopedia by sourcing and revising articles based on ]. There are plenty of reliable, secondary sources that talk about the latest trends around the world, including the new book by James R. Flynn ''Are We Getting Smarter?'' (which I finished reading cover-to-cover last weekend), mentioned in the ] any Wikipedian can use to update articles. -- ] (], ]) 16:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


:See ] for some well-sourced commentary on the merits of that particular publication. ] (]) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
== New paper and commentary on some issues related to article section topics ==
::The criticism appears to be sourced to a journalistic piece in a progressive political magazine and another in a pop-sci magazine. 'Well-sourced commentary' such as this doesn't weigh heavily when it comes to a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal. ] (]) 01:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::'Highly regarded' went out the window when they had white supremacists on the editorial board. ] (]) 01:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Even the two critical sources stated describe it as 'one of the most respected in its field' and 'a more respected psychology journal'.
::::If any experts in the field of intelligence research have made a case against the journal's reputation, then its reliability could be questioned. As it is we have mixed criticism from two journalists of a well regarded peer-reviewed publication. ] (]) 02:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nah. We can discard a source without needing to meet your personal standard, which doesn't have any relation to Misplaced Pages's policies so far as I can tell. It is worth mentioning, though, that the ] (noted experts on racism) that spends multiple paragraphs on this specific paper and how it shouldn't be used as a source. A sample quote: {{Tq|Piffer’s credentials, affiliations and the scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect}} - ] (]) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Based on which Wiki policy are you discarding it as a source? It's used several times in articles related to intelligence research.
::::::Not than an advocacy organization's opinion really is of note when it comes to population genetics, I do note that these several SPLC paragraphs go into no more detail than to state that scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect (no reasons for this assessment or counterarguments given, at all), to question the author's credibility and to state that there are no reliable sources to dispute it. Which adds up to nothing in particular from an organisation with absolutely no standing in scientific matters. ] (]) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If this Piffer article is used several times, please point those usages out specifically because those definitely need to be removed. ] (]) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::As per my original comment and your response to it, I'm referring to the journal ''Intelligence''. Which seems to have somehow achieved the status of a 'pick-and-choose' source.
::::::::The argument against mention of the Piffer paper, whether it's flawed research or not, requires something more than commentary from a civil rights organisation. ] (]) 04:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Contrary to what you might imagine, we rely on editor judgement for evaluating source reliability all the time, and Piffer is definitely a fringe source per our guideline. This would be ascertainable even without explicit debunking in a scholarly source. Some pseudo-scholars are too insignificant to draw that kind of attention. That said, that explains in no uncertain terms what is so profoundly unscientific about Piffer's methodology. No matter how you squirm, you will get nowhere with this line of argumentation. ] (]) 06:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A preprint is not a fine peer-reviewed anything.
::::::::::Our guideline places Piffer as a fringe source based on his conclusions, or is it his associations?
::::::::::I'm aware that a past RFC prematurely declared the suggestion that genetics plays a role in population group IQ differences to be 'fringe' rather than merely minority. As RFCs aren't binding and consensus can change at any time, hopefully this will be rectified at some point. Though a consensus against it is emerging, the idea hasn't been conclusively refuted and research is ongoing. ] (]) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The author of that paper is Kevin Bird. Kevin Bird also said: "The past isn't an indication of how the future behaves...I do science because I find it intellectually engaging, to be completely honest...I do it with not as much interest in attaining or discovering truth." He then said that he is "not interested in discovering truth". It is completely impossible to take a person like that seriously. And that paper's not peer reviewed. ] (]) 05:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::: has now been published by '']'', the flagship journal of the ]. It is no longer a preprint. As to your gotcha quote about "truth"... ] (]) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks for the updated cite. But an Indiana Jones meme? What am I supposed to take away from that? ] (]) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That your attempt to smear Bird is thoroughly unconvincing. Also see ]. ] (]) 12:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::The SPLC aren't experts on genetics, and they don't cite any scientific publications in their article to critique Piffer. The closest they come is citing a non-peer-reviewed book review of a book Piffer didn't write. ] (]) 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::The SPLC may be experts on racism, but is there any evidence that they're experts on science? ] (]) 23:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Correctly identifying racist pseudoscience is part of their expertise, yes. It's not like they're commenting on an article about astronomy. ] (]) 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Pseudoscience is that which does not employ the scientific method. Neither the SPLC nor Bird have made such an extreme claim about the Piffer paper. Bird may have the expertise to critique the methodology employed, but anything of the sort is well beyond the SPLC's realm of expertise. ] (]) 14:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:Please also read ] concerning the journal co-founded by Davide Piffer. ] (]) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


== Notification about ] ==
A local friend of mine is a behavior genetics researcher (a mathematician with a doctoral degree in psychology) who forms part of the study team of many current studies in human behavior genetics. He just shared in an online forum links to a newly published study and commentary on that study, which should be food for thought for editors of this article on what current mainstream views are human behavior genetics researchers.


I posted already on ], but would like more eyes on the discussion to provide more perspectives.


Also I tried editing the article, to give it more substance, but this is not my area of expertise. Please feel free to clean it up anyway you want. ] (]) 05:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)


== Test scores ==
http://ssgac.org/documents/FAQsRietveldetal2013Science.pdf


The Test Scores section has a paragraph discussing disparities in academic achievement and math test scores in the UK, but surely those are a less reliable measurement of intelligence than general mental ability (GMA) tests, such as those discussed here?<ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1359432X.2024.2377780?needAccess=true</ref> Is there any objection to replacing this paragraph with the results from this meta-analysis of GMA tests? ] (]) 04:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
(FAQs about “GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies
:There is no reason to remove the current text or the sources used, but feel free to suggest additional text sourced to for discussion here to reach consensus. How to define ''intelligence'' and what's a less or more reliable way to measure it are controversial. Many believe that ''intelligence'' includes many disparate capacities and that there cannot be a numerical value that measures general intelligence.
genetic variants associated with educational attainment”)
:Note that the reliability of your source is very questionable, since all three authors are closely associated with either '']'' (see also ]) or '']''. ] (]) 06:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
-- ] (], ]) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


== Anyone around who can check recent edits for Richard Lynn? ==
== Waving the bloody shirt ==


Thanks. ] ] 13:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I find this article pretty uncyclopedic and POV. This controversial issue is introduced, in the very third sentence, by saying "Historically, claims that races differed in intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, Social Darwinism, and eugenics." Then the very first section, "History of the debate," opens with "Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics." Talk about poisoning the well! The effects of historical views are all very well in their place, but in this case they seem to be framing the discussion, which should be an objective exploration of the various viewpoints. Can this be fixed? ] (]) 08:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:This is a case where the controversy is like an elephant in the room. Everybody knows that it's there, so if you don't talk about it, the very fact that you're not talking about it sends a strong message about your attitude toward it. It might not be an intended message, but it will come through nonetheless. ] (]) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
: The key issue is sourcing what is said in the article. If there are sources that link the topic of the article to the history of the other issues mentioned, and if that linkage is a major emphasis in reliable secondary sources on the article topic, then it is fully appropriate to mention those linkages in the article, including in an early sentence in the article lead paragraph. When in doubt, look for ] to resolve article editing issues. I have shared with fellow Wikipedians a ] and a ] for a few years now (and I invite further suggestions of sources for each) so that we can reach informed consensus on how to edit articles related to some of these controversial topics. -- ] (], ]) 16:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:: To the socio-anthropological aspects, it's not poisoning the well if it's factual. The very first African Americans were free men afforded the same opportunity as all who came to the New World. The ranking of the races, justifying slavery and a whole host of evils, came later. Oversimplifying, still... ''(subsequent philosophical ramblings deleted pror to posting)'' ]<small> ►]</small> 00:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


== The lead requires major changes == == Genome-wide association study recent changes ==


Editors who follow this page will probably take an interest in recent edits over at ]. ] (]) 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
] is suppose to have a summary of the body. The lead as it stands right now does not meet ] and needs a major overhaul. Recent changes by Maunus also appear to increase the weight of environmental factors while the entire "genetic arguments" section continue to have completely zero weight in the lead. This is problematic and I would like to request assistance in better balancing the summary of the body in the lead. I'll try to spend some time on the lead and do what I can but assistance from others would be helpful. ] (]) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
:I tried to make a summary of points from both the "potential environmental causes" section and "genetic arguments" section. The lead should avoid trying to go into too much detail of any one specific argument as this seems to introduce problems related to NPOV and due/undue weight. For example, the previous text "The gap in IQ scores also correlates with a similar disparity in educational outcomes". While this may be true, it is misleading and doesn't take into account the intricacies of proper cause and effect and the lack of consensus regarding what the cause and effect is among researchers. Also if this text is included, it would be necessary to mention that IQ gaps are also consistent with Spearman's g. Which will probably then cause another line that needs to be included and then another. Instead of trying to go into too much detail of any one specific argument in the lead, which appears to introduce a range of new problems, it seems better to just summarize the points of both the "potential environmental causes" section and "genetic arguments" section. ] (]) 20:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
::I can not in anyway accept a lead that does not include mention of the fact that the gap has been diminishing over the past 40 years. It would be misleading and counterfactual to suggest that the gap is constant. Secondly ther reason that the genetic argument does not get similar weight as the environmental is that consensus is that there are no known genetic explanations for the gap whereas there are many environmental explanations that have been positively shown to account for part of the gap, if not necessarily all of it. Your proposed changes will make the article more biased and less factually accurate. I have reverted your change. If you wish we can have an RfC about which version is more better weighted. ] 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:17, 9 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

  • Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
  • Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". 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.
  • Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.
  • Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
  • Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
  • Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
  • Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
Former good article nomineeRace and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 4, 2006Articles for deletionKept
April 11, 2011Articles for deletionKept
February 24, 2020Deletion reviewOverturned
February 29, 2020Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnthropology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCulture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconRace and intelligence is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Section sizes
Section size for Race and intelligence (31 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 2,627 2,627
History of the controversy 3,119 11,838
Early IQ testing 3,763 3,763
The Pioneer Fund and The Bell Curve 4,956 4,956
Conceptual issues 25 12,777
Intelligence and IQ 3,402 3,402
Race 9,350 9,350
Group differences 2,017 11,749
Test scores 6,620 6,620
Flynn effect and the closing gap 3,112 3,112
Environmental factors 26 28,726
Health and nutrition 8,895 8,895
Education 4,630 4,630
Socioeconomic environment 3,656 3,656
Test bias 2,671 2,671
Stereotype threat and minority status 8,848 8,848
Research into possible genetic factors 4,981 27,192
Genetics of race and intelligence 4,001 4,001
Heritability within and between groups 4,588 4,588
Spearman's hypothesis 3,826 3,826
Adoption studies 4,255 4,255
Racial admixture studies 2,450 2,450
Mental chronometry 1,939 1,939
Brain size 937 937
Archaeological data 215 215
Policy relevance and ethics 2,717 2,717
See also 142 142
References 18 50,123
Notes 28 28
Citations 31 31
Bibliography 50,046 50,046
Total 147,891 147,891

? view · edit Frequently asked questions Is there really a scientific consensus that there is no evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence? Yes, and for a number of reasons. Primarily: Isn't it true that different races have different average IQ test scores? On average and in certain contexts, yes, though these differences have fluctuated and in many cases steadily decreased over time. Crucially, the existence of such average differences today does not mean what racialists have asserted that it means (i.e. that races can be ranked according to their genetic predisposition for intelligence). Most IQ test data comes from North America and Europe, where non-White individuals represent ethnic minorities and often carry systemic burdens which are known to affect test performance. Studies which purport to compare the IQ averages of various nations are considered methodologically dubious and extremely unreliable. Further, important discoveries in the past several decades, such as the Flynn effect and the steady narrowing of the gap between low-scoring and high-scoring groups, as well as the ways in which disparities such as access to prenatal care and early childhood education affect IQ, have led to an understanding that environmental factors are sufficient to account for observed between-group differences. And isn't IQ a measure of intelligence? Not exactly. IQ tests are designed to measure intelligence, but it is widely acknowledged that they measure only a very limited range of an individual's cognitive capacity. They do not measure mental adaptability or creativity, for example. You can read more about the limitations of IQ measurements here. These caveats need to be kept in mind when extrapolating from IQ measurements to statements about intelligence. But even if we were to take IQ to be a measure of intelligence, there would still be no good reason to assert a genetic link between race and intelligence (for all the reasons stated elsewhere in this FAQ). Isn't there research showing that there are genetic differences between races? Yes and no. A geneticist could analyze a DNA sample and then in many cases make an accurate statement about that person's race, but no single gene or group of genes has ever been found that defines a person's race. Such variations make up a minute fraction of the total genome, less even than the amount of genetic material that varies from one individual to the next. It's also important to keep in mind that racial classifications are socially constructed, in the sense that how a person is classified racially depends on perceptions, racial definitions, and customs in their society and can often change when they travel to a different country or when social conventions change over time (see here for more details). So how can different races look different, without having different genes? They do have some different genes, but the genes that vary between any two given races will not necessarily vary between two other races. Race is defined phenotypically, not genotypically, which means it's defined by observable traits. When a geneticist looks at the genetic differences between two races, there are differences in the genes that regulate those traits, and that's it. So comparing Africans to Europeans will show differences in genes that regulate skin color, hair texture, nose and lip shape, and other observable traits. But the rest of the genetic code will be essentially the same. In fact, there is much less genetic material that regulates the traits used to define the races than there is that regulates traits that vary from person to person. In other words, if you compare the genomes of two individuals within the same race, the results will likely differ more from each other than a comparison of the average genomes of two races. If you've ever heard people saying that the races "are more alike than two random people" or words to that effect, this is what they were referring to. Why do people insist that race is "biologically meaningless"? Mostly because it is. As explained in the answer to the previous question, race isn't defined by genetics. Race is nothing but an arbitrary list of traits, because race is defined by observable features. The list isn't even consistent from one comparison to another. We distinguish between African and European people on the basis of skin color, but what about Middle Eastern, Asian, and Native American people? They all have more or less the same skin color. We distinguish African and Asian people from European people by the shape of some of their facial features, but what about Native American and Middle Eastern people? They have the same features as the European people, or close enough to engender confusion when skin color is not discernible. Australian Aborigines share numerous traits with African people and are frequently considered "Black" along with them, yet they are descended from an ancestral Asian population and have been a distinct cultural and ethnic group for fifty thousand years. These standards of division are arbitrary and capricious; the one drop rule shows that visible differences were not even respected at the time they were still in use. But IQ is at least somewhat heritable. Doesn't that mean that observed differences in IQ test performance between ancestral population groups must have a genetic component? This is a common misconception, sometimes termed the "hereditarian fallacy". In fact, the heritability of differences between individuals and families within a given population group tells us nothing about the heritability of differences between population groups. As geneticist and neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell explains:

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.

The bottom line is this. While genetic variation may help to explain why one person is more intelligent than another, there are unlikely to be stable and systematic genetic differences that make one population more intelligent than the next.

What about all the psychometricians who claim there's a genetic link? The short answer is: they're not geneticists. The longer answer is that there remains a well-documented problem of scientific racism, which has infiltrated psychometry (see e.g. and ). Psychometry is a field where people who advocate scientific racism can push racist ideas without being constantly contradicted by the very work they're doing. And when their data did contradict their racist views, many prominent advocates of scientific racism simply falsified their work or came up with creative ways to explain away the problems. See such figures as Cyril Burt, J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Hans Eysenck, who are best known in the scientific community today for the poor methodological quality of their work, their strong advocacy for a genetic link between race and intelligence, and in some cases getting away with blatant fraud for many years. Isn't it a conspiracy theory to claim that psychometricians do this? No. It is a well-documented fact that there is an organized group of psychometricians pushing for mainstream acceptance of racist, unscientific claims. See this, this and this, as well as our article on scientific racism for more information. Isn't this just political correctness? No, it's science. As a group of scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina explain: "while it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed". These authors compare proponents of a genetic link between race and IQ to creationists, vaccine skeptics, and climate change deniers. At the same time, researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so, as is made clear by this article: . It's just that all the evidence they find points to environmental rather than genetic causes for observed differences in average IQ-test performance between racial groups. What about the surveys which say that most "intelligence experts" believe in some degree of genetic linkage between race and IQ?
  • These surveys are almost invariably conducted by advocates of scientific racism, and respondents to these surveys are also almost exclusively members of groups that promote scientific racism. In short, they are not representative samples of mainstream scientific opinion.
  • These surveys tend to have very low participation rates, and often consist of fewer than 100 respondents.
  • Many of the surveys suffer from methodological flaws, such as using leading questions. This leads to an increase in responses from those who agree, and a decrease from those who disagree.
  • Generally speaking, the better the methodology of the survey, the lower agreement it shows with the claim of a genetic link between race and intelligence.
  • Even the most poorly structured surveys, conducted among members of groups that are dominated by advocates for scientific racism, show much doubt and difference of opinion among respondents.
  • The vast majority of respondents have absolutely no qualifications to speak on genetics.
Is there really no evidence at all for a genetic link between race and intelligence? No evidence for such a link has ever been presented in the scientific community. Much data has been claimed to be evidence by advocates of scientific racism, but each of these claims has been universally rejected by geneticists. Statistical arguments claiming to detect the signal of such a difference in polygenic scores have been refuted as fundamentally methodologically flawed (see e.g. ), and neither genetics nor neuroscience are anywhere near the point where a mechanistic explanation could even be meaningfully proposed (see e.g. ). This is why the question of a genetic link between race and intelligence is largely considered pseudoscience; it is assumed to exist primarily by advocates of scientific racism, and in these cases the belief is based on nothing but preconceived notions about race. What is the current state of the science on a link between intelligence and race? Please see the article itself for an outline of the scientific consensus. What is the basis for Misplaced Pages's consensus on how to treat the material? Misplaced Pages editors have considered this topic in detail and over an extended period. In short, mainstream science treats the claim that genetics explains the observable differences in IQ between races as a fringe theory, so we use our own guidelines on how to treat such material when editing our articles on the subject. Please refer to the following past discussions:

Piffer (2015)

Piffer (2015) found differing frequencies of cognition and IQ-enhancing genes in different racial populations:

https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2015-piffer.pdf

Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See Intelligence (journal) for some well-sourced commentary on the merits of that particular publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The criticism appears to be sourced to a journalistic piece in a progressive political magazine and another in a pop-sci magazine. 'Well-sourced commentary' such as this doesn't weigh heavily when it comes to a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
'Highly regarded' went out the window when they had white supremacists on the editorial board. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Even the two critical sources stated describe it as 'one of the most respected in its field' and 'a more respected psychology journal'.
If any experts in the field of intelligence research have made a case against the journal's reputation, then its reliability could be questioned. As it is we have mixed criticism from two journalists of a well regarded peer-reviewed publication. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Nah. We can discard a source without needing to meet your personal standard, which doesn't have any relation to Misplaced Pages's policies so far as I can tell. It is worth mentioning, though, that the SPLC (noted experts on racism) published an article that spends multiple paragraphs on this specific paper and how it shouldn't be used as a source. A sample quote: Piffer’s credentials, affiliations and the scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect - MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Based on which Wiki policy are you discarding it as a source? It's used several times in articles related to intelligence research.
Not than an advocacy organization's opinion really is of note when it comes to population genetics, I do note that these several SPLC paragraphs go into no more detail than to state that scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect (no reasons for this assessment or counterarguments given, at all), to question the author's credibility and to state that there are no reliable sources to dispute it. Which adds up to nothing in particular from an organisation with absolutely no standing in scientific matters. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
If this Piffer article is used several times, please point those usages out specifically because those definitely need to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
As per my original comment and your response to it, I'm referring to the journal Intelligence. Which seems to have somehow achieved the status of a 'pick-and-choose' source.
The argument against mention of the Piffer paper, whether it's flawed research or not, requires something more than commentary from a civil rights organisation. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Contrary to what you might imagine, we rely on editor judgement for evaluating source reliability all the time, and Piffer is definitely a fringe source per our guideline. This would be ascertainable even without explicit debunking in a scholarly source. Some pseudo-scholars are too insignificant to draw that kind of attention. That said, here is a fine peer-reviewed source that explains in no uncertain terms what is so profoundly unscientific about Piffer's methodology. No matter how you squirm, you will get nowhere with this line of argumentation. Generalrelative (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
A preprint is not a fine peer-reviewed anything.
Our guideline places Piffer as a fringe source based on his conclusions, or is it his associations?
I'm aware that a past RFC prematurely declared the suggestion that genetics plays a role in population group IQ differences to be 'fringe' rather than merely minority. As RFCs aren't binding and consensus can change at any time, hopefully this will be rectified at some point. Though a consensus against it is emerging, the idea hasn't been conclusively refuted and research is ongoing. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The author of that paper is Kevin Bird. Kevin Bird also said: "The past isn't an indication of how the future behaves...I do science because I find it intellectually engaging, to be completely honest...I do it with not as much interest in attaining or discovering truth." He then said that he is "not interested in discovering truth". It is completely impossible to take a person like that seriously. And that paper's not peer reviewed. Hi! (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Bird et al. has now been published by American Psychologist, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association. It is no longer a preprint. As to your gotcha quote about "truth"... Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the updated cite. But an Indiana Jones meme? What am I supposed to take away from that? Hi! (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
That your attempt to smear Bird is thoroughly unconvincing. Also see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The SPLC aren't experts on genetics, and they don't cite any scientific publications in their article to critique Piffer. The closest they come is citing a non-peer-reviewed book review of a book Piffer didn't write. Hi! (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The SPLC may be experts on racism, but is there any evidence that they're experts on science? Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Correctly identifying racist pseudoscience is part of their expertise, yes. It's not like they're commenting on an article about astronomy. MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is that which does not employ the scientific method. Neither the SPLC nor Bird have made such an extreme claim about the Piffer paper. Bird may have the expertise to critique the methodology employed, but anything of the sort is well beyond the SPLC's realm of expertise. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Please also read OpenPsych concerning the journal co-founded by Davide Piffer. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification about Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(3rd_nomination)

I posted already on WP:FTN, but would like more eyes on the discussion to provide more perspectives.

Also I tried editing the article, to give it more substance, but this is not my area of expertise. Please feel free to clean it up anyway you want. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Test scores

The Test Scores section has a paragraph discussing disparities in academic achievement and math test scores in the UK, but surely those are a less reliable measurement of intelligence than general mental ability (GMA) tests, such as those discussed here? Is there any objection to replacing this paragraph with the results from this meta-analysis of GMA tests? Stonkaments (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the current text or the sources used, but feel free to suggest additional text sourced to for discussion here to reach consensus. How to define intelligence and what's a less or more reliable way to measure it are controversial. Many believe that intelligence includes many disparate capacities and that there cannot be a numerical value that measures general intelligence.
Note that the reliability of your source is very questionable, since all three authors are closely associated with either Mankind Quarterly (see also Jan te Nijenhuis) or OpenPsych. NightHeron (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1359432X.2024.2377780?needAccess=true

Anyone around who can check recent edits for Richard Lynn?

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Genome-wide association study recent changes

Editors who follow this page will probably take an interest in recent edits over at Genome-wide association study. MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions Add topic