Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WavePart (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 10 June 2010 (→New / short article by Flynn should be featured). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 7 days

	Race 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 Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit FAQ 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: No evidence for such a connection has ever been published. A statement signed by 143 senior human population geneticists states categorically that genetics research in no way supports the view that "recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results". (See this, this, and this for context.) As understanding of the human genome and the science of population genetics advances, it has become increasingly clear that race is not a biologically meaningful way to categorize human population groups. See for example this statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Even if we take ancestral population groups to be proxies for race, most subject-matter experts agree that cognitive differences between such such groups are unlikely to exist. A group of prominent geneticists explain why here. Extensive evidence has been published which indicates that observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups are environmental in origin. A group of leading psychologists summarizes some of these findings here. Most researchers view the idea of a genetic connection between race and intelligence as scientifically obsolete. See e.g. this statement by the editorial board of Nature. 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: RfC on race and intelligence Race and IQ: "no evidence" for genetic component? RfC: What sources should we use to establish notability and relative balance of different viewpoints? No "direct" evidence for a genetic component RfC on racial hereditarianism

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, 104

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 7 days

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Debate assumptions

At one point, we had a separate section entitled "Debate assumptions." I wrote a part of this and several other editors contributed as well. That section was lost (I hope inadvertently) in some recent bold editing. I am adding it back in. I have picked the most recent stable version. I am also removing overlap material from the new section entitled Current debate. I make no claims about whether or not the material in "Debate assumptions" is perfect. Like all aspects of the article, it could be improved. But an entire section should not be deleted without us reaching some form of consensus. (I have no objection to bold editing of the content of the section, for BLP reasons or otherwise. I just object to the section itself disappearing. See previous discussions here and here. Note our extensive discussions about this section during mediation: here and here. I hope that, before major editing takes place, editors might read this background and outline some of their concerns so that we can discuss them. David.Kane (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In reading through the article, and that at least some believe it is a victim (perpetrator?) of systemic bias, I rather think some of the intrinsic problem here can be handled by a judicious renaming, that is Race and tests of intelligence. Race and measures of intelligence sounds more encyclopedic but is, IMHO, open to the same problems as the current title.

   The results of cognitive, deductive, spatial etc. skills measured in intelligence tests cannot help but reflect both the innate capabilities of an individual as well as that individual's capabilities as either enhanced or inhibited by their circumstances—from education to nutrition to home life and beyond.

   Such a renaming would serve to organize the discussion along the lines of:

1. Who was tested for what/when/how
2. What were the results
3. What was the interpretation of the results
   1. by those conducting the tests
   2. by those participating in the tests (if available)
   3. by outside observers, this would be organized primarily by
      1. those engaged in the study of intelligence through the administration of standardized tests and by other means, and
      2. those who are members of social and/or ethnic groups by which tests have been (widely) conducted and/or tabulated (from larger samples)
      3. debate in the media and society (focusing on serious discussion, not the usual arguing over whose hearsay is "more right" than someone else's)

Just some thoughts.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Unbiased"

I would like to remove the first part of the first sentence in the "Flynn effect" section: "Although modern IQ tests are unbiased". The reference states the following: "Despite widespread belief to the contrary, however, there is ample evidence, both in Britain and the USA, that IQ tests predict educational attaintment just about as well in ethnic minorities as in the white majority." The only thing this reference says is that IQ tests predict educational attaintment equally for both groups. Well, of course! The education system is probably biased in the same way as IQ-tests are biased, valuing certain capacities higher than other ones. So, unless anybody has any good arguments against this, I'll remove this part of the sentence, but not sooner than 13/6. Lova Falk talk 09:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please go for it. And well done pointing out how these "facts" can be misinterpreted. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read some of the sources for this article, you'll see that IQ predicts a lot more than just educational achievement. It also predicts job performance, income, lifespan, and law abidingness, all to the same degree for all ethnic groups. In order for test bias to account for this, the people in either ethnic group who are favored by test bias would have to be the exact same people favored by bias in all of these other aspects of life.

I have no sources at hand but I think that educational achievement is one of the predictors for job performance, income, lifespan and law adingness - so it is not so strange that also IQ tests are a predictor for all these things.Lova Falk talk 11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. Bias is a scientific concept. The research shows no slope / intercept bias and measurement invariance. Validity is a scientific concept. One form of validity is predictive-- a sense of what a test measures can be inferred by what the scores predict. Perhaps you should get some sources at hand, and maybe operate under the assumption that researchers in this area are not so droolingly incompetent that they haven't looked into these issues over the last 100 years or so. -Bpesta22 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is probably about to enter arbitration, so most of the people who are normally involved in it aren't currently as active as they normally are. Perhaps coincidentally, there are a lot of questionable changes that have been being made to the article lately, with little or no discussion about them about the talk page. I'm not sure what ought to be done about this, since most of the regulars here are under a 1-revert-per day restriction in preparation for the arbitration case, but it would be nice if more or the regulars could pay attention to what's going on here and see if they can come up with any ideas about how to handle this. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am clearly none of the regulars, and I don't even know what you mean by this "1-revert-per day restriction", but you can certainly drop a note on my talk page if you would like me to revert a dubious edit. I'm happy to check and revert if I agree it is not a good edit.Lova Falk talk 11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

One has to be really careful with this information. It may be that there is a correlation between IQ, educational achievement, job performance, income, lifespan, and law abidingness. But a correlation does not automatically mean that any one of those factors causes the others. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, correlations don't say anything about causality. But my point is that this correlation does not mean that IQ-tests are unbiased. Lova Falk talk 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But correlations DO say something about cause. One cannot use a correlation to prove cause, sure. But, cause implies correlation. What evidence would you need to conclude that IQ tests are not biased? Could you describe the data pattern that if found would falsify your view that they are biased? -Bpesta22 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the people involved in this article have agreed that the source we should use as the overall basis for its perspective is Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. This is the official statement on Race and intelligence from the American Psychological Association, and we’ve agreed that it’s the most neutral and mainstream explanation available of the current state of research about this topic. I’ll quote the paragraph of this statement that summarizes the APA’s conclusions about the social effects of what IQ tests measure:

In summary, intelligence test scores predict a wide range of social outcomes with varying degrees of success. Correlations are highest for school achievement, where they account for about a quarter of the variance. They are somewhat lower for job performance, and very low for negatively valued outcomes such as criminality. In general, intelligence tests measure only some of the many personal characteristics that are relevant to life in contemporary America. Those characteristics are never the only influence on outcomes, though in the case of school performance they may well be the strongest.

Notice their word choice: they refer to the characteristics measured by IQ tests “accounting for” school performance and “influencing” social outcomes. That’s saying more than just that the two are correlated; it’s describing as causal link between one and the other. Regardless of whether any of us agree that it’s reasonable to assume this causal link exists, if this is what the source material says (which it is) then our job is to just report what it says, rather than trying to second-guess it. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what goes in the article must be restricted to what reliable sources say. I'm a newcomer to commenting on the article. While you say that "Most of the people involved in this article have agreed" that the APA's view is the best, I have reservations about the true independence of such a body. It's psychologists who gain income from creating IQ tests. While I am sure that most APA members are very professional people, at least some of them must have a financial interest in maintaining IQ testing as a popular assessment tool. Hardly the basis for an independent view. Hence, I question the APA being defined as a reliable source for this subject matter. HiLo48 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notice taken and thank you for the explanation! And they actually also make my point:"It is often argued that the lower mean scores of African Americans reflect a bias in the intelligence tests themselves. This argument is right in one sense of "bias" but wrong in another. African Americans are subject to outcome bias not only with respect to tests but along many dimensions of American life. They have the short end of nearly every stick: average income, representation in high-level occupations, health and health care, death rate, confrontations with the legal system, and so on. With this situation in mind, some critics regard the test score differential as just another example of a pervasive outcome bias that characterizes our society as a whole (Jackson, 1975; Mercer, 1984). Although there is a sense in which they are right, this critique ignores the particular social purpose that tests are designed to serve. From an educational point of view, the chief function of mental tests is as predictors..." So, because the article says about bias that the argument is right in one sense but wrong in another, I still think that we should remove the statement that IQ tests are unbiased. Lova Falk talk 13:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, what do you think about quoting the paragraph you have just mentioned here in the article itself? That might go a long way toward allaying some reader concerns about what is being said about IQ tests in the article text. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: I’m intending to add a section to the article that quotes this paragraph sometime shortly. I and several other editors have been discussing this revision to the article for more than a month; I just want to wait for the article to get a little more stable before I add it. (Right now there seems to be some minor edit-warring going on over recent changes.)

Lova Falk: it’s important to make sure you understand in what sense the APA is saying that IQ tests have a bias against African-Americans. The only way in which the APA agrees that “bias” exists in this context is that blacks do less well at them on average than whites do. That can be considered “outcome bias” in a statistical sense, but it’s not how most people use the term “bias” when claiming that IQ tests are biased against blacks. In the sense that most people tend to claim this, meaning that they think IQ tests underestimate blacks’ abilities and potential achievements, the APA is saying that IQ tests are not biased against them. The part of that paragraph after the part that you’ve quoted points this out.

Two other sources which discuss this are Arthur Jensen’s 1980 book Bias in Mental Testing (which, despite its title, presents evidence that no such bias exists) and the 1982 report from the National Academy of Sciences Ability Testing: Uses, Consequences, and Controversies, Part I, which agreed with most of Jensen’s conclusion about this. The second one might especially be of interest to HiLo48, because unlike Arthur Jensen and the APA, the National Academy of Sciences does not profit from designing IQ tests, so there isn’t the same danger of bias from them that you think there is the APA’s case.

I don’t think the fact that “outcome bias” in IQ tests can be said to exist in a statistical sense is worth mentioning in the article. The article obviously already mentions that the average IQ of blacks is lower than that of whites, and mentioning that the term “predictive bias” can be used for this difference is just going to be confusing to anyone who isn’t familiar with statistical terms. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Captain, that's not quite correct: while the APA report does state the absence of any simple bias, it does not rule out the possibility of some sort of complex bias (although it doesn't raise the question specifically). If you need help locating the exact sentence within the report which says that, just let me know and I'll find it for you.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge of statistics is not very strong, so I'm not going into discussions on that. To me, an IQ test is an intelligence test and not a school-success-prediction test. I am very familiar with some of these tests and I don't know how it would be possible to create an unbiased test - that is, an intelligence test that gives the same results to two children with the same intelligence, one of them living in an enriched environment and the other in an understimulating environment. The intelligence tests I work with have subtests called "Information" or "Comprehension" and of course a deficient education lowers subtests scores. That is what I call bias. However, I see there is consensus amongst you to keep the statement that modern IQ-tests are unbiased, so I withdraw from this discussion and this page. Lova Falk talk 15:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I too "don't know how it would be possible to create an unbiased test". I teach high school in a major Australian city. Despite widespread claims (including in Misplaced Pages) that Australia has a 100% or 99% literacy level, around 10% of our Year 7 students cannot read well enough to understand written tests, and hence would score poorly on IQ tests. The reasons for this are not properly researched nor documented. It does seem to me to be related to socio-economic status. While that can all be Wiki-dismissed as OR, nothing will convince me that such tests are unbiased. HiLo48 (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to further expand on the above... Upon occasionally visiting the homes of the poor readers, an obvious contributor to that state (obvious to me, anyway) is the fact that in these homes one sees no reading material. No books, newspapers, anything. All news is gained from TV and radio. Hence no reading practice, nor incentive.

As an Australian who has worked with Aboriginal kids too, I must tell the story of the Yolngnu people of Arnhem Land in our Northern Territory. Traditionally, the answer to a question that you would receive from a member of that community was the answer that the listener thought you would be most pleased to hear. Nothing to do with it being the truth, or the "right" answer. How do you test such a person's IQ?

Unbiased tests? Rubbish! HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you guys describe what an unbiased test would look like? -Bpesta22 (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish indeed. -Bpesta22 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the recent edits here are not making best use of the sources.

I see there have been edits back and forth here this morning on the issue of heritability estimates for IQ in the lead paragraph. In a moment, I will post a new edit, based on the following principles: (1) the same researcher's more recent views on a subject should be given more weight than that researcher's views from two decades ago, and (2) a researcher who writes a mainstream point-by-point refutation of a cited article ought to be mentioned in close proximity to that same article. This is a disputed issue, no doubt about that, but the lead paragraph ought generally to reflect the most recent point of view of authors cited in it, and moreover should be NPOV with regard to citing both points and counterpoints on issues for which there is major "clash" in the literature. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be sharing references with all the editors to help improve this article.

Last year I began a major revision of a working paper project (begun in 2006, based on shorter research notes I began compiling as early as 1993) largely on the topic of IQ testing and theories of human intelligence, topics which relate this Misplaced Pages article's topic of race and intelligence. As the talk page templates note, "Race and intelligence was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time." Currently the article here is listed as a B-class, mid-importance article for WikiProject Psychology, so it's good to see so many editors active here. As a courtesy to the editors who have long been here, I will note that I will soon post citations (Wikiformatted by template codes) for the dozens of books and articles I have at hand for my non-Misplaced Pages project (a literature review for popular audiences interested in the primary source literature on IQ testing) to a subpage of my user page. I will add more references to verify the statements that have already long stood here in this article, without favor to one point of view or another. (I hope to add specific page numbers to both the references I add and the existing references that I am able to look up here. I also hope to clean up what appear to be some duplicate reference names that now appear in the notes for this Race and Intelligence article.) At some length, I expect to expand sections with additional facts, perhaps add a few subsections, and from time to time do substantive edits under the NPOV principle, as the sources report various points of view. Thanks to all of you who have already worked on this very detailed article. I am lucky to have access to a very comprehensive academic library at which I have circulating privileges, so I am delighted to add some V and NPOV to various Misplaced Pages projects. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had two fruitful library runs in as many days, and I'm still cobbling together a master list of references from materials I have at hand and materials I have read before and materials cited in those. I'll be glad to hear suggestions from all of you for further sources to consider. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am working alphabetically, from A to Z, on this, and have folded into a Wikified bibliography quite a few references from conference handouts and working paper drafts I have prepared over the years. There is still much more to add, but already enough there that I invite you all to visit the Intelligence Bibliography page to tell me about sources you think should be added to it, or to correct typos in my Wikifying the bibliography. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hispanics?

Can someone answer me a question? If Hispanics can come in all races, why are they always considered for racial studies in the United States? It makes no sense. They don't do this silly "Hispanic/Latino" thing in any other part of the world. Finding an average can be easy, for example: I could take the scores of non Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks and collectively call them "Anglos" and find the average of the two and say that "Anglos" scored such and such number. So why are Hispanics included, why aren't they just divided into white, black, Native, mixed race, etc?--Fernirm (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The category definitions used in the United States are specific to the United States, and have changed in my lifetime. See the Census Bureau definitions of races and of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity for more information, and note that the Census Bureau demographers say, "The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature." I hope this helps. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

I have no vested interest, history with, or emotional concern about this article. (Full disclosure: I'm a smart white guy with a multiracial friends and family network.) I spotted that this page is having a significant conflict, and I will try to interject some outside somewhat-detached perspective and increase NPOV. WavePart (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though your edits are well-sourced and I trust that they've been made in good faith, I still have some problems with them. For one thing, I think the existence of international IQ differences ought to be mentioned in the lead section. Stereotype is also only one of several possible contributors to the racial IQ gap, and I think for us to mention it specifically in the lead section (without mentioning any other possible contributors) is undue weight.

I'm going to edit the lead section in order to fix some of these problems. Since the version of the lead that existed on June 4th was the last version that was clearly supported by consensus, I think anyone who would like to implement large changes to this section should discuss these changes here, and obtain consensus for them before reinserting them. (That is, the "D" in WP:BRD.) --Captain Occam (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Occam. I'm not going to concern myself with whether or not I edited The Wrong Version, since whatever conflict was going on there didn't seem to be working too well. I will simply try to edit from where it is. I also find that in these controversial articles (how this on managed to become controversial is beyond me), repeated calls for "consensus", which is very hard to define in the midst of a conflict, are often used to try to manipulate contents toward non-compromise positions, while a compromise toward NPOV is the only stable solution. I of course don't care much what the article actually says, as long as it sticks to NPOV. And I think controversial articles achieve NPOV best when they focus more on describing what a topic is about rather than conclusions about a topic, and when they state in the text who has said every sourced claim made. So I will try to keep following that recipe. WavePart (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that you're having trouble getting other editors to accept many of your changes to the article. Perhaps if you explain to me the major points you think are most important to include, I can try to help you find ways to include those points which will be written in a way that conforms better to NPOV and will be accepted better by the other editors. For example, I would like to help you include some information about international IQ differences, but at this point I don't understand what it is you would like to say about this. I see the sentence, "Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, most notably in Africa, though these are generally considered far less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores." It's unclear to me what you mean by "related populations" or "most notably in Africa". But if you can explain to me in some detail what you mean, and perhaps provide a source that I can read over to better understand the point you want to include, then I will try to help you include this. WavePart (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Occam, why did you not take me up on the above offer? I made a genuine offer to help you insert the things you are interested in there, but you just started reverting pieces instead of explaining to me here what you want the article to cover. The offer still stands. WavePart (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WavePart, the way this generally works is that when a person makes a bold edit to an article, and that edit is reverted, the prerogative is on the person trying to make the change to justify it and obtain consensus for it. If there’s no consensus, then there’s no change. Since you hadn’t yet made an attempt to justify your changes to the lead, I reverted it to the most recent version that was supported by consensus during earlier discussions about this topic. Even if that earlier consensus no longer exists, it’s necessary to build a new consensus before keeping the new material.

Now that you’re making an effort to discuss your changes, though, I’ll answer your question. There have been a lot of studies about differences between races outside of the United States, and they generally show the same differences in scores that exist in the United States. The person who’s most famous for writing about international IQ differences between races is Richard Lynn. A lot of people have accused Lynn of cherry-picking data in support of his viewpoint, but the vast majority of studies about IQ differences outside the USA were performed by people other than Lynn, so a more important question is whether IQ scores can be accurately compared between cultures in general. There’s a lot of debate over that point also, hence the lead’s qualification that data outside the United States is generally considered less reliable then within-country differences.

I also think it isn’t appropriate for the lead to mention the study from Flynn and Dickens that the IQ gap has recently shrunk, for two reasons. First, this study is a primary source. Even though I tend to be fairly lenient about articles making use of primary sources in general, the goal of the lead is to provide a concise and general overview of this topic, and for that purpose I think we need to only use secondary sources, and it might even be best for the lead to be cited to nothing except the APA report. And the second reason I have a problem with mentioning this study in the lead is because the idea that the IQ gap has shrunk is disputed, and I don’t think it’s consistent with NPOV to present only one perspective about this. In fact, the same issue of Psychological Science that published the paper from Flynn and Dickens also published this response from Jensen and Rushton in when they claim that the paper from Flynn and Dickens hasn’t adequately examined the data, and that the IQ gap actually hasn’t shrunk. I’m not saying that Jensen is necessarily right or that Flynn is necessarily right, but I don’t think it’s NPOV for us to present one perspective and not the other.

The article’s now protected for three days, but it would be good to have this resolved by the time it’s unprotected. Based on my explanation, can you agree with changing these things? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Occam, thank you for replying. Regarding Lynn's studies of international IQ differences, can you show me a source representing the basic idea you want to have in the lead? It is of course obvious IQ tests have been given in many countries, but how do you propose we state this as a cohesive (and referenced) point which relates to race? To do that, we must find a way to use only one or two sentences to relate studies across countries to studies about race. This may be quite tricky, given that different countries are very different environments, but I'm willing to consider it if you give a starting sentence. WavePart (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Rushton/Jensen response to the Dickens article. Upon reading it I agree that for NPOV it should also be included in the same sentence. I propose, in the simplest phrasing I can think of, "A more recent 2006 study by Dickens et al. found that the gap closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002, however this was challenged by Rusthon & Jensen who claim the gap remains stable." This provides an example that there is some debate in the field about the size and movement of the gap. WavePart (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the possible shrinking of the IQ gap, I think it would probably be sufficient to just state what the APA report says, which is that some researchers have claimed that the gap has been shrinking, but that this hasn’t been convincingly demonstrated. I think it would be better for the disagreement between Dickens/Flynn and Jensen/Rushton to only be covered in the body of the article; we already have a section titled “score convergence” in which this topic is discussed. What do you think of that idea?

As for what to cite about international score differences, I guess I can think of a few sources we could use. One of them can be Lynn’s 2006 book Race Differences in Intelligence: an Evolutionary Analysis, which presents a lot of data on this topic (most of which is from researchers other than Lynn), although Lynn’s conclusions from this data are also highly contentious. And then for the point about this data being disputed, we can include this review of Lynn’s book as well as this one, both of which argue that Lynn is right about some points (the international score differences exists) but wrong about others (that the score different isn’t as large as Lynn claims, and that it doesn’t directly cause differences in national wealth.) There’s also this review of Lynn’s book, which argues that because of the difficulty comparing IQ scores between cultures, the data cited by Lynn has no validity at all.

David.Kane has also mentioned at one point that international score differences (and their shortcomings) are discussed by Machintosh’s book IQ and Human Intelligence, although I don’t own a copy of that book. If he can provide the exact page number for the relevant part of this book that discusses this, that might be a good source to use also. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Significance and policy relevance: finally added

After more than a month of discussion (here, here, here, and in the mediation archives), I think we’ve finally come to enough agreement about what this section should contain that it’s ready to be added to the article. In addition to the changes that I and others have already made this section in response to the feedback It’s received in those threads, I’ve also followed these more recent suggestions I’ve received about it:

• Per Aprock: the article now summarizes and links to the relevant parts about other articles on similar topics; namely Intelligence and public policy and Intelligence_quotient#Positive_correlations_with_IQ. I’ve also added two more secondary sources to this section, Jensen 1998 and Nisbett 2009, in response to your complaint that this section relied too heavily on primary sources.
• Per Victor Chmara: the section no longer discusses the book World on Fire, and IQ and the Wealth of Nations is credited to both of its authors rather than just to Lynn. I’ve also added a more recent source discussing Jensen’s views about education.
• Per Slrubenstein: I’ve gotten rid of the “between nations” section, and added the information about correlations with national IQs to the “IQ differences outside the USA” section instead.

Thanks to everyone who’s made suggestions about this section. As a result of all of your advice, I think this section is a lot better-written and more neutral than the version of it that was in January’s version of the article. I’m sure it still isn’t perfect, but I would hope that any additional changes to it can be made by editing it within the article, rather than doing a wholesale revert. The article’s under 1RR right now anyway, so trying to edit war over this section probably isn’t a good idea. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that this dispute is in the process of going to mediation, it is not a good idea to make major changes. Aprock discussed the "assertion of false consensus" in his Arbitration statement. This is what is taking place here. Having read through the links you added, I see no evidence for a consensus for your changes. This is not the first time, see this thread for a similar incident. In the mean time, I have reverted your changes, as the content is a POV synthesis. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, have you actually looked at all of the changes I’ve made before reverting all of them? Around half of them were only to undo non-consensus changes that had been made to the article without any discussion, such as removing this image. I added the image back, and now you’ve re-removed it. Do you actually think this image doesn’t belong in the article, or did you not even pay attention to the fact that you’re removing it again?

Even if you don’t think there’s a consensus yet for the new piece of content I’ve added, you don’t appear to have any content objections to it. And what I mean by that is that you were active on this talk page during the month that it was being discussed, but during all of the time that I was asking everyone who had content concerns about this section to please bring them up, you never mentioned any. Other editors initially had concerns about NPOV and synth with it, but when they told me specifically what the problems with it were, I changed the section in order to fix them. From the fact that you’ve never come up with any specific problems with this section when I was asking for people to point them out, and that even now you aren’t providing any specific examples of what you think is wrong with this section, your problem with it appears to be nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I think you should self-revert. It seems fairly clear that this revert was a reflexive action on your part, and that you barely looked at what it was that you were reverting. None of the changes I’ve made should be very contentious at this point, not even the new content. Even if you don’t think there’s a consensus for it yet, I’m clearly satisfying all of the requirements that other users have mentioned for what this section should be like. The only reason this section wasn’t added to the article before now is because the article was locked for a while, and then I wanted to wait for existing edit wars over it to subside before adding new content. But at this point, there’s no reason for its addition to be delayed any longer. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review it and discuss the various problems. Given the number of problems I see in your draft, it might make sense to do that on the talk page. aprock (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So you still aren’t satisfied with it? I really thought I’d fixed all of the problems with it that you were raising. If you think there are additional problem with it, they must be things you haven’t mentioned before now.

But you’re still welcome to bring up any concerns you have about it. I think this section is good enough to be edited in the article itself at this point, but if you tell me what specific things you think ought to be changed about it, I’ll incorporate those changes whenever I re-add this section. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please review the preliminary review here . If the draft version in your sub page is done, I'll post another review sometime on Wednesday (or before). aprock (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is what you mean by my subpage, then yes, that’s the current draft.

The preliminary review you’ve linked to is something we’ve already discussed at length. Some of the critiques you provided there I’ve followed, while for others I’ve explained in detail why following them isn’t necessary, and for several examples of the latter you’ve had nothing to say in response. If you’re going to post another review, I sincerely hope you aren’t going to just repeat some of your earlier critiques that I’ve already said aren’t appropriate, while not acknowledging any of my responses to them. I shouldn’t need to point out that this that of stonewalling isn’t acceptable behavior, but this was something you did a few times while we were discussing this section during the mediation, so I want to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen again.

If you aren’t going to be ready to post a review of this section until Wednesday, is it all right if in the meantime I add it back to the article, and I modify it based on your suggestions whenever you provide them? (Or you can just modify it yourself based on how you think it should be improved, if you’d prefer that.) Even if this section needs to be improved some more, I think the article is better off with it than without it, and I also think it’s better off with some of the other changes I’ve made that Muntuwandi reverted, such as re-adding the Lewontin corn image. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss content issues when I have time. That will likely be Wednesday, but possibly before. aprock (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please answer my other question, in the last paragraph of my previous comment? Since I’ve followed the existing suggestions about this section, I don’t think the fact that you’re intending to make some new suggestions about it in the near future is a good reason to exclude it from the article until then, particularly when doing so also involves excluding other changes that are beneficial and not contentious at all. But before I undo Muntuwandi’s revert, I want to make sure you agree that what I’m suggesting is reasonable.

It looks like the corn image has been added back by someone else now, but I think all of my first five recent edits were obviously beneficial. (None of my first five edits involved the new section.) Adding back the corn image was only one of these edits, but Muntuwandi reverted all five of them. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw that corn image, my first instinct was that it violated the definition of heritability, and I was about to remove it on those grounds. But I think I figured out what is trying to be said, which is simply an illustration of how variability within a population does not describe variability between populations. I have adjusted the caption to try to make this less controversial. WavePart (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Mustihussain, I'm undoing your revert. Please discuss here so that we can avoid a pointless edit war over a simple caption. I did read the source, and what I edited the caption to say is the same as what the source says next to that image. Unfortunately, your edit has some sentences that are strictly speaking incorrect. You cannot say, "The height of this "ordinary genetically varied corn" is 100% heritable", because that is factually incorrect if you do not specify WHICH group of corn you are referring to the heritability of. In fact, the height of the whole population shown in the graph is NOT 100% heritable, because there is quite plainly an environmental influence from the nutrient difference. My edit was entirely about explaining this difference between within groups vs between groups, which is the role of this figure in the referenced source. If you disagree with some specific aspect of that edit, please discuss here so that we can merge rather than simply reverting. WavePart (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Stereotype Threat

Removing the section on stereotype threat. It is pure speculation and there is no evidence to indicate that the stereotype threat is causing racial IQ gaps or that studies that have found racial IQ gaps was a result of stereotype threat. The study itself is unrelated to IQ but primarily of SAT and grade scores which is considerably more environment based than IQ, which is a much stronger measurement of psychometric g. It is also in complete contradiction to the APA Task Force Report that states biases in the construction or administration of tests is not the cause of the White-Black IQ gap. Given that there is no evidence to suggest any of the studies that have found IQ gaps between races were using stereotype threat, to try to state that it is causing the gap is without any foundation. BlackHades (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think the section discussing stereotype threat ought to be removed from the body of the article, as long as qualifications such as the Wicherts study are mentioned there also. But I approve of removing the paragraph about it from the lead section, which is what you’ve done. Apart from what you mentioned about it being synth to discuss this in the context of IQ, when the source only talks about SAT scores, I think it’s also WP:UNDUE to mention stereotype threat in the lead section without mentioning any other specific possible cause of the IQ gap.

I removed this paragraph from the lead section yesterday, but Muntuwandi added it back without explaining why. (He reverted eight edits from me all at once, but only provided an explanation for his reason regarding one of them.) I encourage you, or anyone else, to look through some of the other recent changes that WavePart made to this article without any discussion, and see whether you approve of them all. I tried to change some of them yesterday, but all of these changes are what were reverted by Muntuwandi without any explanation. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think ST should indeed be mentioned in the article, but not in the lede. -Bpesta22 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Mikemikev has added back the "significance and policy relevance" section, but Ramdrake has reverted both this edit and the previous edit that removed the "stereotype threat" paragraph from the lead. His justification for removing the "significance and policy relevance" section is the fact that it doesn't have consensus yet, while his justification for adding back the "stereotype threat" paragraph is that it's cited and relevant.

Now, this is a rather blatant double standard. If lack of consensus is sufficient reason to keep something out of the article, then the "stereotype threat" paragraph definitely shouldn't be in the lead, because at the moment three users are arguing against its inclusion there and none are arguing for it. The way this is supposed to work is that material gets removed from the article if there are content-based objections to it; "no consensus" is never a stand-alone reason to revert, as explained here. Right now there are content-based objections to the "stereotype threat" paragraph in the lead, but the only equivalent thing for the "significance and policy relevance" section is the fact that Aprock is offering to provide some criticisms of this section in the next few days. And it isn't appropriate to exclude a section from an article based on suggestions that haven't been made yet.

Ramdrake, I think you know that you aren't being consistent here. I'll give a little while for you (or anyone else) to justify this revert, but if nobody can provide a justification for it, my argument for what's wrong with it stands and it'll need to be undone. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Ramdrake is correct that major changes while Arb Con is reviewing this case are problematic. I think Occam is right that such an argument applies especially to the lead. Since the lead is such an important part of the article, I have a reverted to a stable version from May 5, 2010. Please discuss any proposed changes (and I am sympathetic to many such ideas) on the Talk page first, at least while Arb Con is going on. David.Kane (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with that. I agree that we shouldn't try to effect major changes to the article while arbitration is going on, and I thank David for conveying in better terms what I was trying to point out.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the lead, David. A lot of the changes I made yesterday that Muntuwandi reverted were to undo non-consensus changes that WavePart had made to the lead without any discussion, so I’m glad it’s back in a stable state now.

I definitely agree that large changes ought to be discussed before they’re added, especially during an ArbCom case, but the new material I tried to add is something we’ve already discussed for more than a month, and content-wise I don’t think there are any outstanding objections to it at this point. Something I think we need to ask here is, how much discussion about this is necessary? And if a month and three separate drafts aren’t enough, how much more discussion about it do we need? I really get the feeling that we aren’t accomplishing anything by delaying this any longer. This is especially the case if we end up having to delay adding this section until after the arbitration case is finished. Arbitration cases sometimes last for months, and by that point the recent discussions about this section would have lost relevance, and I would most likely have to re-explain the justification for it to an entirely new group of editors. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi BlackHades. It's not even remotely legitimate to call the existence of a stereotype threat "pure speculation". As shown by the list of references on the stereotype threat page, it is documented in countless peer reviewed studies about social perception and its impact on IQ, so it unquestionably has AN effect. The only thing that can be reasonably debated is how MUCH of an effect, or what portion of the race/IQ effect it can explain. However, I have seen no evidence put forward that an answer is available to this in the scientific literature, and therefore, no answer will be obtained by people arguing here about how MUCH of an effect it has, and thus that should not factor in to the content of the article. The goal here is NPOV, which is achieved by listing the things which contribute to the topic, and drawing no conclusions about which ones dominate. And that is what the article must do. Therefore, the article should describe that stereotype threat effects exist, and not attempt to draw original-research conclusions about how much they can explain any observed effect. WavePart (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is pure speculation. There is absolutely no indication that any of the studies that found racial IQ gaps were using stereotype threat. There is absolutely no evidence that these studies manipulated the administration of IQ tests on specific racial groups on reaching their IQ gap conclusions. Stereotype threat is completely irrelevant to the discussion since 1. studies demonstrate IQ gaps exist without any evidence of stereotype threat and 2. SAT and grade scores is significantly less intelligence based in relation to psychometric g than IQ. BlackHades (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would you say "there is absolutely no evidence" when the stereotype threat page clearly lists studies showing that it applies to IQ tests? Perhaps you misunderstand what the stereotype threat is supposed to be. It is NOT about a failure in the administration of an IQ test. It is about the psychological effect of the mere test-taker's knowledge about a stereotype relating to the contents of the test, which is present even in a properly administered IQ test. WavePart (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Occam, you said you want to include more mention of Wichert's study showing that stereotype threat is inadequate to explain the full racial gap. I'm okay with integrating more mention of this study, but I am unable to locate an original document for it. The reference in the stereotype threat section of this article seems to be gone, and googling for the article seems to mostly only find this wikipedia article and clones thereof. Do you know where a copy of this can still be located, so that I can properly consider its inclusion? Thanks. WavePart (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Stereotype threat does not explain the typical one SD IQ difference between whites and blacks, and I don't think any reputable researchers have ever claimed otherwise. Sackett et al. (Am Psychol 59 (1): 7–13) put it this way:

"Thus, rather than showing that eliminating threat eliminates the large score gap on standardized tests, the research actually shows something very different. Specifically, absent stereotype threat, the African American-White difference is just what one would expect based on the African American-White difference in SAT scores, whereas in the presence of stereotype threat, the difference is larger than would be expected based on the difference in SAT scores."

In the media, stereotype threat has frequently been misrepresented as eliminating the typical white-black gap. ST should be mentioned in the article, but it's not a terribly important phenomenon.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but the article title is not "Proving Whether or Not Race Has a Hereditary Impact on Intelligence". Many of you seem to be reflexively editing the article as if that were the real topic, when by definition of NPOV that CANNOT be the topic of the article. At no point did I, or any edit I made, claim that the stereotype threat can explain anything in entirety (nor should the article claim that it can). But, you just showed from your own quote that stereotype threat has a significant effect on intelligence test scores between the races. That is all that is required for its inclusion as a major topic in an article describing the issues around Race and Intelligence. After all, our goal is not to prove anything, but to neutrally describe everything relevant that relates to the topic! WavePart (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Stereotype threat does not explain any of the gap. It explains what may happen in low-stakes laboratory experiments, but it does not explain any of the gap in, say, SAT scores. My point is simply that ST should not be misrepresented in the article. There are some good comments about this is Hunt and Carlson's article "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence" in the section "Example of Overgeneralization From Laboratory Research". I'd recommend that article in general for editors of R&I articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WavePart, the article already talks about the Wicherts study I mentioned. It’s in the second paragraph of this section. Since there are a fair number of reliable sources which discuss stereotype threat as a possible influence on IQ, I don’t think this topic should be excluded from the article entirely, but the article definitely ought to also cover some of the shortcomings of this explanation that Victor Chmara has mentioned.

Victor, I think I largely agree with you about this. Several of the shortcomings you’ve mentioned are already described by the paragraph about the Wicherts study, but if you want to add some additional sources about this (after the article is unprotected), you’re welcome to do so.

On a different topic, I would like it if someone could respond to my comment about the new section I was hoping to add. David.Kane and Ramdrake both suggested that I ought to discuss this section some more before adding it, but how can that be possible if my attempts to discuss it are going to be ignored? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Victor. Steele and Aronson report that African American groups perform worse when usual when instructed that their cognitive ability is being tested (where White Americans perform similarly to usual), while White Americans perform better than usual when instructed to take the test seriously (where African Americans perform similarly to usual), and they specifically state that they consider these results related to IQ testing. I concur completely that Hunt and Carlson argue against their interpretation (although state that they think there is still a significant effect there). The most important part, however, is that it is not our role to declare one of these two groups correct! Per NPOV, we should simply state them both, as they are obviously both prominently published in the literature. (Heck, I'm pretty sure stereotype threat was even in one of my old college textbooks, listed as contributing to testing differences, so obviously it is a prominent position.) So I accept adding mention of Hunt and Carlson as an appropriate counterpoint. I reject the idea of removing stereotype threat as a contributing factor just because another set of researchers disagrees with it. On a controversial article you do not exclude things just because they are countered. You describe both, and mention that they disagree. WavePart (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask one more time: does anyone have anything to say in response to my comments about the new section I’m hoping to add? I’ve been asked to try and discuss this section before adding it, which is what I’m doing now. If other editors aren’t willing to cooperate with my attempts at discussion about it, yet still continue to revert it when I try to add it, then they’re the ones who are acting out of line with regard to this. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The verdict

What is the verdict then, is there a link between race and intelligence? There's an awful lot of opinionated material in this article, but what's the black and white answer? It looks to me that yes, some races are more intelligent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.18.57 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Define race.

Some groups of people defined as races by some people perform better on some tests called IQ tests than some other groups of people defined as races by some people. HiLo48 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi 86.* ip. It's not the role of wikipedia articles to draw such conclusions, and thus we must oppose any attempt by editors to insert a conclusion of that sort into the article. (And that's why you will hopefully not see it there.) I will say, for anyone worried about the topic, that given the amount of debate around it, it seems hard to say with any strong scientific certainty what the answer ACTUALLY is. But even if there IS a non-zero difference in the average, it doesn't say anything about individual members of any race (given how very broad the measured distributions are), so you shouldn't take anything personally, or take pride in any such result, or use it to form conclusion about any individuals you meet, because none of those things would be at all reasonable given the information available. WavePart (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead

"Race and intelligence research investigates differences in the distributions of cognitive skills among human races." This rather misses the application of quantititative methods, no?

"Race and intelligence research investigates differences in the distributions of quantitative results of tests created to measure cognitive skills among human races."

Without that qualifier, it makes it appear the activity is independent of how intelligence is measured.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You raise an excellent point. I've inserted the word "measurements" in the first sentence. Thanks. WavePart (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that change. But, please, changes in the lead should be discussed in Talk before they are made (or after they are reverted the first time). David.Kane (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case, another change in line with my suggestion and the change made...

Race and intelligence research investigates differences in the distributions of cognitive skill measurements among human racial groups. Much of the debate in this area centers around questions of how intelligence is measured quantified ...

Together with the mention of measurements, I think this makes for a crisper definition. Thoughts?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Same idea, but sounds crisper. WavePart (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A serious informational question: what establishes consensus for a "stable version" here during the arbitration?

I see an edit summary of an edit that deleted quite a lot of good content (from the keyboards of multiple editors over several days) from the lead portion of the article. The edit summary says, "(reverted lead to stable version of May 5, 2010. Please, no edit warring in the lead while Arb Com is considering this article. Any changes to the lead should be discussed at the Talk page first.)" My question is, where do we have documentation here on the article discussion page that there was a "stable version of May 5, 2010"? If I am not mistaken, the editing I have done to the article was in the most recent instance preceded by a post to this article discussion page explaining a rationale for my edit, posted soon afterward. That edit had a wording change--for which I thanked the subsequent editor on his user talk page--almost immediately, and then was "stable" for quite a while thereafter. What I'm not seeing here in this article just now, as I view the article history, is anything that is very stable. So, again, my question is, where else on this article discussion page are there discussions of edits that make clear what version of the lead section or any other section is stable and supported by broad consensus? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for David.Kane, but since I agree with him about this, I'll explain my own reason for feeling this way. The version of the lead as of May 5th was the result of the discussion here, on April 9th-11th, and underwent almost no changes for the following two months. In fact, if you compare Ludwigs’s wording there to the version as of June 4th, you’ll see that the differences between the two are fairly minor. I think two months of only minor changes to this section is sufficient to quality as stability.

Then on June 6th, WavePart introduced a large number of changes to the lead without any discussion. Several editors have commented here opposing these changes, and WavePart hasn't responded to these comments in an attempt to defend his changes. That on its own should be sufficient to establish that these changes need to be reverted until consensus can be established for them, and I find it strange that other people would have a problem with this.

When Arthur Rubin undid David.Kane's revert, he didn't attempt to respond to David's comment above in which David.Kane explained this. I'll give Arthur Rubin a few hours to reply to my own explanation about this, but if he doesn't I'll be restoring David.Kane's version, since no attempt is being made to explain why WavePart's changes should be kept, he hasn’t made any attempt to discuss them here, and several editors are opposing them. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude the edits. As will probably be shown in the RfAr, to the extent that the article was "stable", it was due to the (unaccepted) "moderator" removing opposing edits and discouraging editors from making (justified or unjustified) changes. I can't say I would have made all the changes WavePart made, but they are generally closer to NPOV than what was there before.

I think that, if we're going to revert to a "stable version", it needs to be one before Ludwigs2 became involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You don’t seem to have been paying very much attention to what was happening between when the mediation concluded and the present. Ludwigs2 hardly edited the article at all after the mediation case concluded, and when he did, it was only to implement compromises between people who were arguing here. I challenge you to find a single example of Ludwigs2 actually discouraging people from making changes to the article during the past two months—I’m quite certain that’s never happened at all.

The reason the lead was stable for the past two months was because nobody had a problem with it. And over the past two months, there have been people from both “sides” of this dispute commenting that the lead was one of the only parts of the article that was supported by a strong consensus. If your only justification for reinstating WavePart’s undiscussed changes to the lead is based on this inaccurate an understanding of what’s been the case in this article while you weren’t participating here, then they need to be undone. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be difficult to check, as Ludwigs2 also redacted talk page comments critical of the expert quoted by Bpesta22 (who may be the same person, but it's not relevant) on NPA grounds. If the editors critical of the lede stopped in on the talk page or mediation page first, and their comments were redacted by Ludwigs2, it would now be difficult to determine whether there was dissent at the time. I'm not claiming that I would have disagreed with the lede, but I didn't feel my discussing it would have been fruitful while Ludwigs2 was "in charge". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You aren’t making sense here. Ludwigs2 redacted personal attacks from everyone, including a few questionable comments that I made, but there’s no evidence that he ever redacted any comments about content. If you’re going to make this serious of an accusation against him, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it. Perhaps more importantly, the mediation case was concluded within three days after the new lead was added to the article, so the vast majority of the time that everyone seemed to approve of it was after Ludwigs2 was no longer “in charge”.

All of your objections to the lead appear to be based not on content, or even on any concrete examples of user conduct, but just on suspicions about Ludwigs2 for which you haven’t provided any support. Can you accept that these aren’t valid reasons to reject the version of the lead that resulted from mediation? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been around the page much lately (sick of haggling over trivialities), but the last time I checked the lead was largely the one written my Mathsci (which I had tweaked a bit after the mediation was over). As for my redactions, they were surgical, (carefully removing personal comments without affecting the meaning of the sentence), and mostly affected TechnoFaye (whose mouth consistently runneth over). I redacted Mathsci's comments 3 or 4 times, as well as comments from several others - it had no impact on the discussion except to remove inflammatory wording.

Occam, Arthur is trying to insinuate that I'm guilty of some sort of malfeasance without actually coming straight out and accusing me of malfeasance, because has no evidence (or even a decent reason to believe) that I've done something wrong. Plus, he thinks we're all too stupid to recognize that he's being uncivil when he does it indirectly like this. If he wants to make an explicit argument against me out of this mess of hand-waving, let him. As soon as he does, I'll take him to ANI and request he be blocked for gross incivility. If he just wants to keep insinuating then he's got a toothless argument that you can safely poo-poo in proper Victorian style. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwig. Arthur, if you aren’t going to make any further effort to justify your revert, I’ll be restoring the lead to the way it was before WavePart’s changes.

I think reverting it all the way back to the May 5th version (the way David.Kane did) is probably more than is necessary here, since the lead was stable up through June 4th. this version from Aprock contains some minor (non-contentious) improvements over the May version, so I think it makes most sense to just use that. I’ll also add some citations in the places where this version of the lead says that it needs them, since almost all of what’s in the lead is basically just a paraphrase of the APA report. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think reverting to the January 12 version is probably more sensible. It was clearly stable, then, except for clear vandalism and reversals.

As for personal attacks by Ludwigs2, what he removed of my post was not a personal attack. It was questioning the qualifications of the expert Bpensa22 quoted, not Bpensa22 himself. That's clearly misfeasance. It would only be malfeasance if he chose which editors to redact; as he redacted so many, and I have no idea what his criteria are for deciding what to redact (only that it's not related to Misplaced Pages policies), that I cannot tell. I couldn't prepare a detailed analysis in a week even if I did nothing else; so, unless I can find a personal attack (say, on Mathsci, or on one of the (generally) environmentalist editors who hasn't returned), which wasn't redacted by Ludwigs2, I couldn't say that he directed the edits in one direction. I can only testify that his censored actions convinced me it wasn't worth my time to attempt to remove the clear errors in the article, which are still there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I am reverting to the last stable version of January 12, 2010. I selected a revision by Ludwigs2. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My god, you’ve reverted the entire article back five months? Do you seriously think you can roll back five months of changes to an article without first obtaining a consensus for it? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not? The article was fairly stable pre-October. Certainly David.Kane's skewed version had no consensus. If David.Kane's suggested draft article had been written on a subpage of the mediation pages or in userspace - something suggested by Aprock and me but rejected unilaterlly by Ludwigs2 - a reasonable discussion could have ensued. Possibly the draft would have been rejected and somebody else could have had a go. But that is not what happened. It's no use pretending that the fourth stage of mediation worked in any way whatsoever. Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

<== (ec) How can there be a stable article while editors - at the encouragement of Ludwigs2 - are only using primary sources? The only neutrally written and properly sourced parts of the article are the lede (written in its first form by me), the history section (copy-pasted by David Kane from the lede of History of the race and intelligence controversy, written by me) and the "current debate" section (also written by me). If a standard textbook is consulted on Intelligence - for example IQ and Human Intelligence (1998) by Nicholas Mackintosh, Handbook of Intelligence (2004) edited by Robert Sternberg or Intelligence (2009) by James R. Flynn - there are statements about what is known about IQ tests and ethnic groups. This is unfortunately not properly conveyed in this article: at the encouragement of Ludwigs2, editors have been skewing the mainstream view, because of their strong personal beliefs. It would seem that Ludwigs2 continues to encourage undue weight for fringe viewpoints and fails to recognize problems with these fringe viewpoints. His intemperate language and personal abuse has not helped. Instead of recognizing active WP:SPAs involved in WP:CPUSH, he termed that "paranoia" on my part and suggested psychiatric assistance. That got him blocked. In the 2004 handbook John C. Loehlin writes extensively about race and intelligence; with Nick Mackintosh, he agrees that no scientific analysis has shown to date that the black-white IQ gap is due to genes and that more research would need to be done to reach any such conclusion; and others do seem to be in agreement that population groups from the far east have a different form of visio-spatial ability that is genetic in origin. None of this is in the article, because it has not used secondary sources. I'm sure that Captain Occam, Varoon Arya, Distributivejustice, Ludwigs2, Victor Chmara, Mikemikev and David.Kane could produce hosts of reasons why secondary sources shouldn't be used: it wouldn't be surprising to learn that using these sources would be a BLP violation, would break long established consensus, they're too recent, they're too old, they're too long, they're too short, Robert Sternberg has long been identified as a hate-monger by Linda Gottfredson and that this would go against all mediation agreements (have I forgotten something?). Ludwigs2 has extensively edited the wikipedia policy pages on WP:POV and WP:FRINGE, so presumably must be aware at least of some of the issues involved here. Captain Occam certainly does not represent any kind of consensus on this page. The segment User:Captain Occam/significance that he tried to include against all consensus is a personal essay, written improperly using WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:POV: of course it adheres to the "Ludwigs2" rules for editing wikipedia. But it is nevertheless unacceptable according to core wikipedia editing policies. I note that Ludwigs2's last content edit was in mid-April and that was to Goatse.cx. That might indicate where his priorities lie on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with MathSci and Arthur here. Start again, get it right. Propose restoring some changes if you like, add good WP:RS, and get consensus for them. The "mediation" isn't working, principally because of the mediator. Verbal chat 09:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tag it as controversial and wait for ARBCOM to deal with the behavioral issues --Snowded 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding this article has serious problems obtaining NPOV, and apparently also problems with editors being unwilling to compromise in the attempt to obtain this. Clearly "stable version" is a myth, and reverting to months back does not solve anything. I am reverting to Arthur Rubin's most recent version as the current version before you guys went on a revert-spree. The goal must be to obtain a neutral perspective by editorial compromise! Seriously people, we're talking about an article about a simple correlation between race and scores on IQ tests. There are plenty of facts to go around, and all we have to do here is essentially list who has said what facts. This should be much simpler than you are all making it out to be. My advice is, take whatever you feel about this topic, and ignore it. Feelings do not write encyclopedia articles. Neutrality does. WavePart (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously people, we're talking about an article about a simple correlation between race and scores on IQ tests. There are plenty of facts to go around, and all we have to do here is essentially list who has said what facts.

I agree with this completely. But if I could provide a slightly more controversial analysis of the situation, we have a group of editors who want to do this, and another who want to trash this article to the point of deletion because it's "racist". mikemikev (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, fortunately they don't get to do that, per wikipedia policy to the contrary. If you agree with this principle, then hopefully we can work together to nudge the article toward that form. I haven't followed all the past bickering here, so I don't really know your perspective on the topic, but also don't much care about your history if you're willing to work toward a compromise coverage of the article topic. WavePart (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to work with sensible editors, but anyone who states "revert to last stable version" when then version was during or after the mediation is incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that this was a stable version of the lead not a stable version of the entire article. And, perhaps obviously, this was a good faith effort to describe a section of the article that many editors with diverse views had worked hard on and come to a rough consensus about. (For the record, I have several complaints with this version, but I recognize that productive work on a difficult article requires me to compromise.) If you don't like the May 5th version, then feel free to pick a different version. (And, again, this is just about the lead, not about the entire article.) Long experience has shown that making good faith edits in the lead, and then refusing to discuss them in Talk after they have been reverted, is a recipe for disaster. David.Kane (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point in regard commentary, but, as WavePart is now discussing his edits, I don't see any problem with leaving his edits in place, rather than going back to a (probably false consensus) "stable version". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, without diving deep into the edit history, it is tough to know which edits are Waveparts and which of those he strongly believes in. So, how about if I start a new section to discuss this but, at the same time revert to the May 5th version (or pick any date you like)? David.Kane (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been my experience that going backwards is, well, going backwards and best left for undoing vandalism. We don't necessarily need long protracted discussions—smaller increments of improvement accompanies by succinct discussion may work better. I haven't gone through edit history to exhaustively acquaint myself with past issues, so I can't say that hasn't already been tried at some point.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) It's just my decrepit middle age setting in, but where is the honkin' huge notice that this article is embroiled with ArbCom? Thanks for your indulgence especially if I missed something obvious somewhere.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can't find one, either. I don't know which template would be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) BTW, on reading through some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I have to observe that numbers are numbers. The article cannot help but be a reflection of that—this is why I have brought up that the article needs to be clear that it is about (attempts at) quantification and analysis thereof—not about superiority, inferiority, or any qualitative conclusion. It is people who are racist when they misappropriate numbers to advocate agendas which disparage others. Let us not confuse the two.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"It's just my decrepit middle age setting in, but where is the honkin' huge notice that this article is embroiled with ArbCom?" I looked for a while for suitable templates, and have not found one either. But in a case such as this, when editors cannot even agree on how much to allow editing while the dispute is going on, it seems to me that readers of the article ought to be able to see a dispute template, which will send them to this talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Article temporarily full-protected and 1RR

I have full-protected the article following a couple of active days of edit warring. I had hoped people wouldn't do that with an Arbcom case pending, but apparently some of you couldn't resist...

Additionally, I would like to formally notify everyone here that as an uninvolved administrator, I am applying a temporary but indefinite 1RR restriction on this article. Once the article full protection expires, for the duration of the Arbcom case, the article or major sections may only be reverted one time per 24 hr period by any given editor, interpreted broadly. Editors violating this restriction may be blocked for edit warring.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all fine, however, there needs to be an "oversight" template which can be populated for any article (to appear with the article and be inherited by article talk) to indicate restrictions and administrative actions, including, but not limited to:

• 1RR restriction
• semi-protected (if applicable)
• subject to prior dispute resolution enforcement(s) w/pointer(s)
• object of current dispute resolution(s) in progress or other oversight

You can't address a conflict or observe the rules of engagement if there's nothing to tell you about it. Certainly, the POV template helps, but that's only a starter and not the real answer.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm placing a POV template on the article page because there is plainly a dispute about POV going on here.

As a courtesy to readers of the article, I've put a POV template on the article page, so that the readers will visit this talk page and see what is going. The only template I could find related to the Arbitration Committee refers to completed ArbCom actions, not ongoing cases. This was a good suggestion from another Wikipedian, who posted on the previous section of this talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well of course that template has already been there since before I became a Wikipedian. That's why I habitually come straight here whenever I land on the article page. The templates seem to be doing their job of bringing people who would like to edit the article constructively here for discussion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Q3

As there is some question as to whether the "mediation" is at all valid, I think we need to reopen /FAQ#Q3, which was "established" as part of that mediation. FAQ#Q1 and FAQ#Q2 seem non-controversial, and do not mention the mediation. This will need to be done regardless of the ArbCom decision, so we might as well discuss it now. In any case, regardless of any wrongdoing, the false accusations of WP:NPA created a hostile editing environment which would discourage any editors who felt that Dr. Pensa was WP:FRINGE (or even, not in the center of the mainstream), from editing. Could someone summarize the justification for that answer? It might very well be appropriate, but we need a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's my bad summer cold that has lowered my absorption coefficient, but that's more than just a lot (FAQ Q3 mediation) to go through. If I might offer advice from studying on how to write about history, any encyclopedia article, to tell a cohesive story, must have a point of view. Looking at content like:

In 1916 George O. Ferguson conducted research in his Columbia Ph.D. thesis on "The psychology of the Negro", finding them poor in abstract thought, but good in physical responses, recommending how this should be reflected in education.

which is recited, along with numerous other contentions, in a litanic inventory—in this case, regarding "History"—there is nothing here that advances understanding of "history". This sort of content desperately needs a secondary source to provided context, minimally much better positioning and organization without violating WP:OR (that is, telling a story no reputable source has told before). Absence of context is not "NPOV", it is "open to (accusations of) any POV." "Contemporary mores and interpretations of intelligence" might be a good place to start to organize historical through to modern interpretations of results as there is a clear correlation.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Nor is this an invitation for scathing 20:20 indictments of historical prejudices. We should be mature enough to know what those are and deal with them appropriately.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please define the term "SIRE data" as used in that FAQ? WavePart (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Arthur, can you clarify which parts of Q3 you think should be reopened for discussion? At the moment the five parts I understand the meaning of, the first three and last two, seem like fairly reasonable compromise positions which seem to match up with the sources. But I'm certainly willing to change position on that if given compelling sources to the contrary. WavePart (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Compelling sources" are not necessary: It was established as part of the invalid mediation, possibly by the moderator without input, so any "consensus" to it should be disregarded. If we can establish a positive consensus for it, including Mathsci, then I would reluctantly concede it belongs. It shouldn't be in the FAQs until a consensus is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I choose to decide based on content and don't care to argue about the legitimacy of past mediation. It might help a lot if the discussion can stay centered more on content than edit history. So if you cannot provide any content-based objection to the contents of the Q3 section there, then I will have to issue my support for the first three and last two. (I cannot agree to the ones that say "SIRE" unless someone can define what that means.) WavePart (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it needs to be moved out of the FAQ until a consensus can be established, even if it were reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the FAQ should enjoy wide support, and in this case it doesn't. Verbal chat 08:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, a very strong consensus was formed for that, by people who are familiar with this subject. You saying "I don't like it" because it was mediated by someone who doesn't like your buddy is of no importance.

SIRE is self informed race and ethnicity. mikemikev (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A summary of what is proposed which is not in the article now would be useful for those that have not been involved from the beginning, there is a lot of assumed knowledge (of the past) in any discussions of content debate.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

“It was established as part of the invalid mediation, possibly by the moderator without input, so any "consensus" to it should be disregarded.”

What does it accomplish for you to engage in speculation like this, when you’re perfectly capable of reading through the mediation archives for yourself, and seeing how each of these points was agreed on? In no case did Ludwigs2 decide for himself on any of these points, or defer to Bpesta22’s authority; these are simply summaries of the things that everyone participating in the mediation was able to come to an agreement about. If you want to claim that people’s dislike of Ludwig’s handling of the mediation stopped them from raising objections to these points when they otherwise would have done so, you’re welcome to think that, but consensus is always determined only by the comments that are being posted on the relevant talk pages, not by the private opinions of editors who don’t express them. And by that standard, consensus was reached on all of these points during the mediation.

If there’s any particular one of these where you want me to link you to the discussion during which it was resolved, I can do that. Is there? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. As I, for one, was almost sure the mediation was invalid, and found that questioning Dr. Pesta's expert status (not the editor's good faith), required by NPOV, was not allowed, I didn't feel it productive to participate in the mediation. I'm sure there were others. I recall that some content disputes were settled by the mediator by fiat, rather than with editor input. Hence, for this one

1. All "findings" attributed to the mediation must have a hidden pointer to the relevant section of the mediation talk page,
2. If there is any present objection by a active editor who did not participate in that thread, "consensus" should be considered not established. If Mathsci agrees with the statements, I would be willing to withdraw my objection to them, but I still think they should be removed if any established editor thinks they are false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

“I didn't feel it productive to participate in the mediation.”

This is exactly what I’m saying. Consensus is established by the discussion on the relevant talk pages. If someone declines to participate there, regardless of their motives for not doing so, they can’t be included in determining what the consensus is.

As an administrator, I know you’re aware of this. If instead of a mediation case this had been an AFD discussion, would it have influenced the outcome if an editor had private objections to the arguments being presented there, but never raised them on the AFD page? Even if his reasons for keeping his objections to himself were entirely valid, the outcome of the AFD discussion would still be decided without his input.

“I still think they should be removed if any established editor thinks they are false.”

Consensus depends on more than just whether an editor agrees or disagrees with something, particularly if that disagreement is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The strength of the arguments being presented matters also, and whether they’ve been adequately responded to. However, I don’t have a problem with your suggestion that these summaries ought to contain links to the relevant part of the mediation discussion. Does anyone else have an opinion about this?

If other people approve of this idea also, I would recommend Ludwigs2 adding the links. I’m capable of adding them myself, but since he was the mediator, it seems more appropriate for him to do it. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Verbal has just removed one of the items from the FAQ, despite the fact that no attempt has even been made yet to re-discuss this point and the arguments that originally resulted in it. As I mentioned in my last comment, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove content, and thus far that’s the only argument that’s being presented against these conclusions. For this reason, I’m undoing his removal of this. The “disputed” tag can stay on it for now, but in order for it to be removed entirely, there’ll have to be some actual content-based objections to it that overrule the earlier consensus and the arguments it was based on. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on the RfAr page, Ludwigs2's actions, even if well-intentioned, had the effect of driving editors away. Any editor so driven away should be able to return and challenge the "consensus" as if it had never been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with your having the ability to challenge the past consensus over this article. You, Mathsci, and anyone else here is welcome to do that, and if a new consensus is formed, then that will replace whatever consensus was reached during the mediation. What I have a problem with is the attitude that because the earlier consensus didn’t include you, it can’t be considered a consensus at all, and that therefore it’s acceptable to undo any change that resulted from it (or every change, in the case of the five-month revert) without discussing it first. This is no different from how it would be if all of the decisions that were made about this article had been made on the talk page rather than during mediation: major changes still need to be discussed before they’re made, even if they’re being made by someone who didn’t participate in the discussion that resulted in them. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection is that:

1. The mediation is flawed. Any "consensus" which derived from a process in which established editors were driven away, whether or not apparently consistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, is void.
2. For the particular answer I marked as disputed, there were two participants who objected. As the moderator made "rulings from the chair", I would say that, even if there were (which I don't yet see in the mediation talk pages, pointed to as RfAr evidence) an apparent consensus, it would be invalid.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Referring to item X of Y or non-descriptive references to what who said before doesn't help those of us trying to sort through this all. Can we please insure we reference briefly what specific bit of content/(non-)consensus is being discussed when we are raising objections (or even agreeing) here?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

“Any ‘consensus’ which derived from a process in which established editors were driven away, whether or not apparently consistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, is void.”

If that’s the case, then any consensus which has been reached in the past month is void, because Varoon Arya and DJ have both been driven away from this discussion by Mathsci’s behavior. Varoon Arya stated this here, and DJ stated it in his opening statement on the ArbCom case. Is that your perspective about this? If the argument you’re using applies to the mediation, it most certainly applies to the current discussion also.

If you’re going to use the argument that you’ve been making here, this is a question you need to answer. Unless you’re going to apply a double standard, you need to accept either that this isn’t a valid argument against the conclusions of the mediation, or that there won’t be any consensus for any conclusion we reach in a discussion that DJ and Varoon Arya have been driven away from. I would like to know which of these you think is the case.

“For the particular answer I marked as disputed, there were two participants who objected. As the moderator made "rulings from the chair", I would say that, even if there were (which I don't yet see in the mediation talk pages, pointed to as RfAr evidence) an apparent consensus, it would be invalid.”

The main discussion about this was here. It was primarily a discussion between Varoon Arya, Slrubenstein and Aprock, but eventually Slrubenstein stopped responding to VA’s points, even though he was continuing to comment in other threads in the mediation pages. So at that point Varoon Arya continued his discussion just with Aprock, and eventually they reached an agreement about this. Even though there were only two users involved in this discussion by the end of it, it’s important to remember both that Aprock was someone who had initially disagreed with VA about this, and also that most of the arguments VA was making about it weren’t addressed. The strength of the arguments being presented is one of the main things that determines consensus, and in this case no other editor made any attempt to address his points, even when he was specifically soliciting responses from anyone who had a counter-argument.

Ludwigs2 initially concluded this discussion as just stating that research about race and intelligence isn’t fringe in general, but since all of Varoon Arya’s points had been with regard to the D hypothesis specifically (as is apparent from reading his comments), Ludwigs2 eventually also added the conclusion that the hereditarian hypothesis isn’t fringe, which was the actual point that VA had been making. When he added this to the list of current agreements here, nobody raised any objections to it. (At least, not anywhere on the mediation pages, which is what consensus needs to be judged by, as in my AFD example.) What two editors are you saying objected to this conclusion in the mediation discussion, and where did they do so? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

…And I see that Verbal has removed this item from the FAQ yet again, still without making any effort to justify this removal here. My points about it being inappropriate to remove content based only on procedural grounds, and without making any attempt to address the arguments that have been presented for its inclusion, seem to be falling on deaf ears. And obviously, he’s also making no attempt to respond to my points about this; he’s just repeatedly reverting without engaging in any discussion. Could someone else please pay attention to this situation? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quite simple, it no longer enjoys consensus. It should be removed from the FAQ and remain out unless consensus again changes. I'm afraid "Ludwigs said" is an argument from (if you'll pardon this inappropriate term) authority, and that's not how wikipedia works. Verbal chat 18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it seems quite clear from what you have written above that it never enjoyed any kind of consensus, and should never have been added. Verbal chat 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what “Ludwigs said”. Are you going to respond to what I actually said in my comment? Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments being presented, and in this case no effort has been made to respond to the arguments that Varoon Arya presented about this, either by you or by anyone else. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what you said demonstrates quite clearly that only two editors supported the addition. I consider this over now. Verbal chat 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Although that comment (in archive 3), seems to be an agreement of only two editors (as Verbal noted), and seems to have been disputed in archive 6, it would only be correct to include the entire conclusion in the FAQ. That is, "although the hereditarian view is not WP:FRINGE, it is a small minority view." If that were in the FAQ, I wouldn't object, although Verbal still might, unless some evidence of consensus, as opposed to an agreement between two editors, can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying something along those lines sounds fine to me. I’ll wait a little while to see if Verbal objects to this; if he doesn’t, I’ll add this item back to the FAQ with the modified wording.

Can you please answer my other question? How I regard this discussion will be very different depending on whether you think there can’t be any valid consensus in a discussion that some users have been driven away from. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it. How about, "driven away by false claims of Misplaced Pages policy violations". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make why they were driven away? Your point was that it shouldn’t be considered consensus because not everyone who had an opinion to express about the discussion was able to express it there. That’s the case regardless of whether they were driven away by accusations of policy violations, or Mathsci’s personal attacks.

Are you actually trying to come up with an argument for there being a meaningful difference between the situation during the mediation and the current situation? I think you know that there isn’t one, and if you’re going to react to this by trying to come up with excuses for using a double standard here, it’s very hard for me to assume good faith about that.

All I need from you is an answer to my question about whether you think editors being driven away from a discussion means that there can’t be a valid consensus resulting from it. You’re an admin; you should have the ability to answer a question like this. Yes or no? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it matters how people are driven away from a discussion. I felt driven away from the discussion because I felt that none of my views were taken seriously by opponents. Maybe this is how VA and DJ feel about MathSci, but my view (which you may consider biased) is that MathSci simply insisted on including material from reliable secondary sources that they did not like, and MathSci does not tolerate any user deleting properly sourced material. Even if you think I am biased and not doing justice to VA or DJ's feelings, I think that any objective third party reviewing the whole mess would see that a great amount of the conflict has to do with what counts as a reliable source, th actual contention haqving to do with the fact that (1) VA, DJ, and others prefer primary sources and MathSci prefers secondary sources, and (2) VA and DJ simply consider a smaller number of sources acceptable, and flat out reject a range of sources. A simple and obvious example is Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. I believe that VA and DJ would claim that it is reasonable to reject this book because it is a fringe view. My point, for the moment, is that if we put aside reasons for objecting for the moment (because I can call your source "fringe" as quickly as you call my source "fringe"), the fact remains that VA and DJ consider a narrower range of sources reliable and acceptable than MathSci. It is therefore inevitable that they will come into conflict. NPOV and V do not assume much, but they do assume that editors can agree on what is a reliable source and what isn't, what is a significant view and what isn't. If editors cannot reach agreement over this, they are pretty much doomed. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think this is relevant to the point that Arthur Rubin was making, though. If the decisions we reached during mediation don’t count as consensus because certain users didn’t express their opinions in it, as a result of having been driven away, then the exact same thing applies to the current discussion. This is the case regardless of why they were driven away.

Also, I’m virtually certain that the reason VA and DJ quit participating had nothing to do with Mathsci’s content disagreements with them. They’ve both said that it was just the result of his personal attacks, and possibly also his forum shopping at AN/I. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Q3 Vote

I'm not really seeing how the above discussion is leading to a resolution of anything. So to cut to the chase, let's try a simple vote to see where people ACTUALLY stand. I have chosen the most recent point in the history as a version for voting, just so that all votes are on the same version. This can obviously be amended, and in fact will have to be as further research continues to be released. WavePart (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement: "I support making FAQ Q3 as stated in this version a part of consensus."

Agree:

• WavePart (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree:

Neutral:

• My suggested changes have been included, and, although I see some statements of fact which are probably not adequately researched, I don't see anything I wouldn't be willing to follow, tentatively. However, the SIRE points are only tentatively supported by research. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hereditarianism

I was going to tack on above but decided to start a new section. In all those intelligence tests I did throughout childhood (I was part of a study of significantly premature @ St. Vincent's in New York, I'm my own case study of IQ et al. testing in the 60's, hence my ongoing interest since then), I always neatly filled in "OTHER" and "LATVIAN". I was crushed when I was informed I was merely "white." The presentation of hereditarianism seems a bit one-dimensional—that heredity plays a part in cognitive skills associated with intelligence (based on correlation of scores) from biological parents to their offspring is established. I would like to see more exploration of scholarship which contends that what applies in the cases of individuals does/does not also then apply to (self-identified) groups (which have been shown to correlate to identifiable biological markers), i.e., SIRE. But first I think the stuff above (FAQ 3) should be laid to rest.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed I couldn't find "haplotype" in the current article although there is published research in that area. More post-FAQ-tum.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New / short article by Flynn should be featured

It's in press in Intelligence now.

His seems like a much more powerful argument than Nisbett's. The link is ghastly-- if anyone wants the article, send me an email: b.pesta@csuohio.edu

available at ScienceDirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bpesta. It's certainly a more convincing argument than cherry picking a few studies, and I agree some mention should be made in the article. Try putting square brackets around the link to collapse it. mikemikev (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's amusing how Flynn keeps trumpeting the ancient, deeply flawed Eyferth study of children of American GIs in Germany. I think I'll write a WP article about the study.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just note that our role as editors is to be inclusive with regard to sources (even ones discredited later) and deal with differences and evolution of scholarship as part of article narrative, and not to render our personal judgements as to what sources to include or not include.

   On Eyferth, here's a good title to stir up hornets, how about Human biodiversity denialism. (Absolutely no personal editorial opinion expressed here, for or against, this is just the most attention-garnering term I've seen referring to those who quote Eyferth.)

P.S. Seriously, per some comments above, this article is about test scores and what is said about them, not about making conclusions. What drives editors away is the seemingly bottomless pit of angst and (IMHO) needless outrage over the (IMHO) needlessly monolithic "consensus" which has been constructed and is being debated as to agreed to or not/include or not. The more I read here the more I think we'd be better off chucking the whole thing and simply sticking to incremental improvements (which may or may not include chunks off the monolith).

P.P.S. Personally, I couldn't care less what the article looked like months ago, if we've lost something useful it will make its way back incrementally. Can we have the article unprotected so we can make judicious progress? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't (necessarily) that we've lost something useful. The problem is that we've gained questionable data from unreliable (and possibly even WP:FRINGE sources), which reflect a minority view (note, I'm not saying WP:FRINGE here) of the scientific community as if it were scientific consensus, with dissenting editors blocked or threatened with blocks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@Peters - Agreed. @Arthur - You seem to be hung up on the edit history here. Since I just arrived at this article, I have thankfully missed all the drama which apparently took place here. But the wiki way to fix content problems is to edit forward, not to worry about how past edits got to the current state. So I suggest pushing a mental reboot button, and focusing on how to make needed improvements to the article given its current condition. As I've asked a few times, what specifically do you think the article should state that it doesn't, or shouldn't state that it does? WavePart (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles