Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:46, 20 November 2010

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: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

	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. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the 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.

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 14 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: 14 days

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Does anyone have this source at hand?

I'll list some sources here, and update it by edits from time to time.

• Kenny, Michael G. (2002), "Toward a Racial Abyss: Eugenics, Wickliffe Draper, and the Origins of The Pioneer Fund", Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences 38: 259–283

Neutrality and disputed tags

A while ago someone added tags claiming that the article suffers from systematic bias and factual inaccuracies. Who added them, what were the grounds for it, and is there any reason to still have them in the article? There is much to improve in the article, but I don't think there's a need for those tags.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is wise to keep them. When an article isn't tagged that often means that editors pay less attention to improving it and that readers are less aware of problems with its content. I think it would be much better to keep the tags and keep imoproving the article and remove them when we all agree the article is free from bias and is as good as it should be.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the tags have made editors pay more attention to the article -- not least because it is nowhere articulated what exactly it is that is supposedly biased or inaccurate about it -- and I don't think we will ever agree that the article is as good as it gets.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic - I don't see how it can not have a tag untill there is a consensus that the presentation of the topic is completely neutral, and gives neutral treatments of the crucial part of the topic. Quite possible that time will not come. Then the tags are there to make readers aware of that fact. There is no good reason to removing tags from an article the quality of which is under dispute.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Victor's reply to Maunus) I agree with Victor that there is much to improve in this article, and I thank him for his efforts in bringing about improvement. I think the "systematic bias" tag is most often placed on articles by members of the WikiProject on that subject. On my part, I am still not sure what the difference is between systematic bias and unsystematic lack of neutral point of view, so I don't think I have ever applied that tag to an article. I agree with Maunus that we are on a path to being able to remove the tags from the article, but I don't think we are all the way there yet. There are still large sections of the article that have hardly had any substantive edits since full protection was removed after the end of the ArbCom case. Several editors are contributing good work here, but I am persuaded by Maunus's statement that the current placement of the tags supports further good work by multiple editors, and thus is appropriate at this moment. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SES image

Victor Chmara has now twice inserted the SES-image from the Bell curve after it has been removed by WeijiBaikeBianji, without starting a discussion about it here on the talkpage. It is the inclusion of the image that requires arguments and consensus, not the other way round. I think victorchmara should undo his removal and present his arguments for why it is important to include that image in the article. I would add that I agree with WeijiBaikeBianji's removal as the image gives undue weight to a particular interpretation of the relation between SES, race and IQ that is not universally accepted. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The SES chart from the Bell Curve has been in the article for many years without being challenged, so why is it suddenly that its inclusion must be specifically justified, while its exclusion needs no justification? To me, it's clear that something that has so long been accepted as a part of the article cannot be removed just like that.

Misplaced Pages does not require that its content be "universally accepted". If it did, we'd have to blank this article. WP:NPOV means that we must report all significant views, and that of Murray and Herrnstein is certainly one. If you have sources that refute Murray and Herrnstein's analysis, you can include them in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all views have to be represented with graphs - and it is subject to consensus how to represent views. Exclusion generally doesn't need justification but inclusion does. That is a pretty basic principle here in wikipedia where inclusion of data has to be supprted by reference and consensus. Exclusion also needs to be supported by arguments, but I think it is generally better to err on the side of caution when dealing with inclusion of controversial material in articles under arbcom restrictions. I wish you had showed good faith by selfreverting. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. You are opposed to the inclusion of the graph because it is contradicted by PRECISELY ZERO SOURCES YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP. That's right: the graph is wrong, because it is contradicted by ABSOLUTELY NO SOURCE. In other words, your reason for removing the image is that you just don't like it. Do you understand you have to offer evidence that the graph is not significant? Just asserting so is not enough. If I now start removing all sorts of stuff from the article, including material that's been there for years, claiming it to be "controversial" without presenting any evidence for my view, will you accept it? I expect you won't protest it because it's "better to err on the side of caution when dealing with inclusion of controversial material", isn't it?!--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not about contradiction. Lots of things aren't contradicted, that doesn't mean that the inclusion of an image about them aren't subject to normal processes of discussion and consensus. You know full well that Murray and Herrnstein's conclusions about those data are not generally accepted - including an image containing their data makes it look as if they are. Whether or not the data is right is besides the point - the point is what the image means, and about that there is less agreement.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know that Murray and Herrnstein's conclusions are not generally accepted. On the contrary, according to my reading, their conclusions are completely mainstream among intelligence researchers -- look at the Mainstream Science statement or the APA report, for example, both of which agree that SES differences do not explain the b-w IQ gap. Please present sources that contradict Murray and Herrnstein's analysis of race, IQ, and SES. If you can't, your opposition to the graph is based just on your personal opinion, which is worthless in Misplaced Pages. If you can present such sources, we can begin discussing which graphs should or should not be included in the article. Until then, the removal of the graph constitutes pure censorship.--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess pleading ignorance is ok at this point, I apologize for having assumed you were familiar with all the scholarship (even though I have pointed to a lot of it in a previous section just a little bit above this one). Nisbett, in "Intelligence and how to get it", spends a rather large chapter discussing the problems with Murray and Herrnsteins (and others') arguments for interpreting the SES data as conclusively showing that the effect of SES on the gap is negligible. So does Jencks and Phillips in the introduction to "the black white test score gap", and Nisbett in his chapter in the same book. I have mentioned this in another section already. The main drift in both cases is that there are too many possibly contributing factors that have not (can not been controlled) for simply accepting that Murray and Herrnstein adequately "have controlled for SES". the conclusion then becomes that the data is inconclusive whereas the graph clearly goads the reader towards a particular conclusion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with the relevant studies, but it seems that you are not. Did you even read those books?

Jencks et al. 1998 does not refute Murray and Herrnstein's SES-race-IQ analysis. On the contrary, they reproduce it with different data sets, confirming the validity of Murray and Herrnstein's conclusions. Quote from p. 120: "Tables 4-2 through 4-4 indicate that common explanations for the test score gap do not work very well, at least for five- and six-year-olds in the CNLSY. These results support Herrnstein and Murray’s contention that socioeconomic factors cannot be much of the explanation for the gap." And p. 137: "Herrnstein and Murray claim in The Bell Curve that socioeconomic status explains about a third of the black-white test score gap. Larry Hedges and Amy Nowell reach the same conclusion in chapter 5 of this volume. Such estimates seem to be roughly correct when we define socioeconomic status in strictly social and economic terms." In other words, if we use the same traditional sociological definition of SES (i.e. parental income + education) that Murray and Herrnstein used, their analysis is 100 percent correct even according to these "environmentalist" scholars. In the same chapter of the Jencks et al. book, there is a rather ridiculous exercise where they create a model with dozens of "environmental" variables. Even this silly model (which certainly does not correspond to SES!) accounts for just about two thirds of the b-w gap. To their credit, the authors admit (p. 133) that their model suffers from what Jensen called the sociologist's fallacy, i.e. it disregards the fact that the "environmental" variables in it are partially genetically determined.

As to Nisbett 2009, he admits that he has no data to counter Murray and Herrnstein's race-IQ-SES analysis, and therefore explicitly concedes their point (p. 96): "We do know that blacks have lower IQs than whites at every level of SES, so SES cannot be the full explanation of the black/white IQ difference." Then he goes on to speculate about various non-SES "X factors" that could cause the gap, but his discussion of these is not only old-hat (mainly well-known studies from the 60s and 70s) but also dishonest (no mention that heritability rises with age, for example).

In short, the books by Jencks et al. and Nisbett contain nothing that contradicts the graph from The Bell Curve. There is no legitimate reason for its removal. As you still have not presented any evidence against it, I will restore it. Perhaps we could mention in the caption that some scholars think that traditional SES measures do not capture important differences in environment between blacks and whites (which is possible, but does not disprove the point of the graph, that is, the fact that, contrary to what many people believe, controlling for parental income and education fails to close the gap). I note also that you have not tried to remove the heritability and lead levels pics, even though they "clearly goad the reader towards a particular conclusion" -- I wonder why that is...--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring - that is bad. I reiterate that I do not need to provide any evidence against it. Just because the data is correct doesn't mean that the image cannot be removed from the article by a consensus. I respect that Wiji and I do not form a consensus on our own - but neither do you. I will not remove the image again - but if someone else removes it and you reinstate it a third time I will report you to the ArbEnforcement for editwarring. Secondly - you are twisting facts - the quote form Jencks that you present say Herrnstein and Murray claim in The Bell Curve that socioeconomic status explains about a third of the black-white test score gap. Larry Hedges and Amy Nowell reach the same conclusion in chapter 5 of this volume. Such estimates seem to be roughly correct when we define socioeconomic status in strictly social and economic terms."" They then go on to explore dozens of other ways in which social and economic factors that have not been included by M&H can influence the IQ gap. So obviously that "when" is a pretty big caveat since exploring alternatives to it is pretty much the point of the book. (Your mention of their mention of the "sociologists fallacy" is a red herring - it doesn't invalidate their model it only complicates it - it works both ways for example SES also influences IQ - while SES cannot account for the gap but that doesn't mean that it doesn't influence IQ at all) About Nisbett he does say that SES cannot account for the whole gap but he clearly doesn't agree with M&H conclusion that lack of SES as determining factor points directly to heritability - the argument of his entire book is that schooling matters for IQ which is in direct contradiction to M&H and to the image. Whether you think its "old-hat" and "dishonest" is completely irrelevant. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, there was no consensus about removing anything, so your arguments are irrelevant. You removed sourced content, and have not presented even one bit of evidence for your assertion that M & H's analysis is "controversial" (not that being controversial would be grounds for removal of content). Secondly, the graph from the Bell Curve is entirely compatible with the hypothesis that the b-w gap is 100 percent environmentally caused (by unknown "X factors"). So, whether or not Nisbett agrees with M & H regarding heritability is immaterial. Neither Jencks et al. nor Nisbett dispute that M & H's analysis regarding SES, as it is traditionally defined, is correct; in the Jencks book, they get very similar results as M & H using data from another source. To "define socioeconomic status in strictly social and economic terms" is exactly the way it is usually defined; socioeconomic means social and economic. Nisbett says in the Jencks book that "the results presented in chapter 4 suggest that the IQs of black and white children differ for reasons related to child-rearing practices that are somewhat independent of socioeconomic status"; the variables that explain some of the b-w gap are in many ways cultural and not that much related to income or education. The big regression model introduced in the Jencks book does not invalidate M & H's analysis; at best, it complements M & H.

I repeat my suggestion that we describe in the picture caption what M & H mean by SES, and perhaps mention that some scholars think that b-w differences in environment are not captured by traditional SES measures such as M & H's.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If a similar chart with a similar caption or explanatory text does not appear in "The Bell Curve", I would be inclined to remove the image as synth. Can someone verify that such a chart is in the book? aprock (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's on page 288 of the book, in a chapter named "Are the Differences in Overall Black and White Test Scores Attributable to Differences in Socioeconomic Status?". The caption is "Black IQ scores go up with socioeconomic status, but the black-white difference does not shrink".--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So you removed the lead levels pic, too? It seems that soon we'll have no pics in this article at all.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead level image was removed because it didn't follow summary style guidelines. see WP:DETAIL. aprock (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked the chart, and the one in the book is different, indicating some sort of WP:SYNTH. The axes have been switched and the units changed, the labels have been simplified ambiguously. The IQ scale has been incorrectly shifted and the white IQ line has been added. Additionally, the data is clearly different between the charts (e.g. see b-w delta for 7th percentile). The image appears to have been added as a proxy for this disputed homemade image created by the same user Quizkajer/Rikurzhen. Likewise the problems of pairing the image derived from The Bell Curve with text from the APA have been discussed before: . At the very least this chart should be corrected to the source. More generally, there does not appear to be sufficient content or context in the article as it stand for using this image without treading on concerns for undue. Unless a strong case for inclusion of this particular image can be made, I see no reason to retain the vestige of an edit war four years gone. aprock (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to including images from The Bell Curve, which was a controversial book taking a marked position, and which wasn't a clearcut case of a scholarly text either, being aimed at a popular audience. Certainly it would be wrong for this article to contain any graphs or charts that had been altered from the source except in the most minor way, because that would constitute OR. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the unit change (from SDs to IQ points) is a problem, but I hadn't actually noticed that the white IQ line has been added. The latter is indeed a problem. The pic should be corrected. However, the fact that The Bell Curve has been controversial in some academic circles certainly does not mean that we cannot use it as a source. What's more, Murray and Herrnstein's SES/IQ/race analysis has been replicated using other data sets as reported the the Jencks et al. book. I think the SES section could be expanded to include material from e.g. The Bell Curve and the Jencks book.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think someone should make a new version of the chart which fixes the problem of the current chart including data that isn’t in the book. Does anyone want to do that? --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been convinced yet that a chart of this nature adds a lot of value to the article. I see that there has been editor discussion here of sources, which is good, and I think some of the most current sources might be tricky to boil down to that format. But I'm willing to hear other editor discussion about what is really the main issue, how stratified views of parental socioeconomic status influence current hypotheses on causation of the racial score gap. The crucial thing is to find good mainstream sources on that issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The extent that there should be some graphic illustration describing SES issues is really a function of what is covered in the article. The previous state is that an illustration from a mid-90s book was being used in conjunction with a mid-90s review which was written to address issues with the book. At this point, both of those document serve history better than current understanding. A more sensible approach would be to update the section to conform with more recent sources. I'm working on reading sources, but my time is limited and most of the sources I'm currently reading are only indirectly related to R&I. aprock (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Views on Research Section

I think we should discuss whether Victor Chmara’s change to the Views on research section is an improvement. The previous version of this section was too long and disorganised, had a lot of difficult-to-understand quotes, and I think shorter is better. I also don’t understand the basis for Ramdrake’s complaint that the new version puts undue weight on the hereditary hypothesis. Victor’s version provides one of its four paragraphs to Jensen and Rushton, about a fourth of the total space, which is actually less than the fraction of the current section that’s taken up by quotes from Jensen, Rushton and Gottfredson. Can anyone please elaborate on how Victor’s change to this section was a problem? --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Its a problem because we've discussed it before and there was no consensus that it was an improvement. On the contrary several editors thought it was more weighted towards the hereditarian argument than they were comfortable with. Several other versions were also discussed, some of which had more support than Victors meaning that it makes no sense to try an get it in sideways at this point without reviving the discussion on the talk page first and see how it could be improved so that a wider group of editors would support its inclusion.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Which versions got more support than mine? There was an attempt to revive the discussion about the section above, but there were no takers. I added my version to the article, because nobody was doing anything to improve the section. Now that my version is removed, nothing will happen to the section, and the old crappy version lives on. There are plenty of ways to change my version to better match everyone's sensibilities, but from experience we know that it won't happen if we don't add it to the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok on couning it seems all versions had the same amount of support. I prefered mustihussains and my original version over yours. Future bird prefered my original version over yours and mustihussain's. Rafrye prefered your version over mustihussains. You obviously prefered your own version. No one else participated in the discussion. That gives each versison two supporters. Certainly no consensus to unilaterally introduce one of the versions.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not about how much support any version had, but about the fact that nothing will happen to the section unless someone takes the initiative. The section was discussed above, with WBB cautiously supporting my version, and mustihussain opposing it though agreeing that it was an improvement over the current mess. Then there were no more comments, and nothing happened. This article is all about endless jabbering on talk page while nothing happens to the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You could try to write a version that takes othereditors suggestions and reservations into account. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If there were some specific suggestions instead of blanket statements ("it's too hereditarian") it would be easier to improve it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I removed the Rushton & Jensen bit. What do you think:

Views on research

Hunt and Carlson (2007) have identified four contemporary positions on the topic of racial differences in intelligence:

1. "There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function"

2. "Differences in cognitive competencies between races exist and are of social origin"

3. "Differences in test scores that are used to argue for differences in intelligence between races represent the inappropriate use of tests in different groups"

4. "There is no such thing as race; it is a term motivated by social concerns and not a scientific concept"

In 1994, in the wake of the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Anthropological Association published a statement arguing that 'race' is not a biologically meaningful concept, and that it cannot be used to explain variation in intelligence. Many scientists have criticized research on race and intelligence along similar lines. For instance, Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFSternbergGrigorenkoKidd2005 (help) argue there is no agreed-upon definition of intelligence, making its relationship to other constructs such as race "tentative at best", and that research into the relationship between race and intelligence is not in the purview of science, because race is "a social construction with no scientific definition". Furthermore, they suggest that behavioral genetic research on heritability is inadequate to answer questions about genetic influences on intelligence, and point out that "no gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence". Rose (2009) views concepts such as 'race' and 'intelligence' as ill-founded, arguing that any questions about their interrelationship are scientifically unanswerable and ideologically motivated, and that therefore no research in this field should be conducted. Several researchers have linked contemporary research into race and intelligence with historical experiences of racial intolerance and eugenics, suggesting that such investigations should have no place in science (e.g. Sternberg 2003, 2009; Gardner 1998).

In contrast, Hunt and Carlson (2007) have argued that research on race and intelligence is "scientifically valid and socially important". Citing recent research on racial self-identification and human genetic clustering, they also argue that it is "sensible to speak of race as a biological category while at the same time stressing that the concept is a fuzzy one, in the mathematical sense of the word". Rowe (2005) defended the use of race in scientific investigations on similar grounds. Williams and Ceci (2009) assert that even if race was an entirely socially constructed category with no biological underpinnings, it would be worthwhile to study its relationship to intelligence. Flynn (2009) has defended research on race and intelligence, maintaining that much important social-science research would not have been done in recent decades had the subject been off-limits to science.

Arguments supporting some genetic contribution to racial differences in IQ have often proved controversial. Ceci and Williams (2009) note that scientists arguing for the hereditarian view have been "demeaned, ostracized and occasionally threatened with tenure revocation". Similarly, Rowe (2005) pointed out that "many journal editors are reluctant to publish articles providing a genetic explanation of a racial difference", and that "npopular opinions about race have also led to threats on persons and their careers". Rowe proposes that genetic and cultural or environmental explanations of racial differences be treated as equally plausible hypotheses. Pointing out the potentially great social consequences of research on race and intelligence, Hunt and Carlson (2007) advocate the use of stricter than usual standards of evidence in the field "regardless of whether or not find for or against differences".

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hunt and Carlson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. American Anthropological Association (1994). "Statement on "Race" and Intelligence". Retrieved March 31, 2010. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
3. Nature 457, 786-788 (12 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/457786a; Darwin 200: Should scientists study race and IQ? NO: Science and society do not benefit / Steven Rose
4. ^ Rowe, David C. (2005). "Under the Skin: On the Impartial Treatment of Genetic and Environmental Hypotheses of Racial Differences". American Psychologist. 60: 60–70. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 83 (help)
5. Nature 458, 147 (12 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/458147a; A useful way to glean social information / Wendy M. Williams & Stephen J. Ceci
6. Nature 458, 146 (12 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/458146a; Would you wish the research undone? / Jim Flynn
7. Cite error: The named reference ceci&williams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually think that Jensen and Rushton do fit in and are prominent figures in the debate. I don't think they should be left out entirely. I also think that the sections should try to fit the debate into an historical context as well (User:Futurebired) also found this important. I also think that it would be relevant to mention how standpoints are divided between disciplines - in some sense this is a debate on the intersection between anthropologists and psychologists because issues of how to understand race has been a hotly debated issue in anthropology and IQ has been a hotly debated topic in Psychologyt over the years. A part of the issue is that consensus on race in Anthropology is against its existence as a biologically meaningful category while consensus in Psychology is that IQ is a meaningful category. Psychologists that relate IQ to race are then using a definition of race that is disputed by Anthropologists. There are sources that describe how this has played out between the disciplines. I think mentioning the Boasian and Galtonian traditions and how they have influenced and been influenced by social discourses and historical events in the mid twentieth century would also be good. I think providing more context is essential. 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·

Ongoing edits

Since the decision of the Race and intelligence case before the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee, which leaves this article and dozens of related articles under active arbitration sanctions, various newly registered editors, as well as other editors who have been on Misplaced Pages for years, have joined the editors who happened to be editing this article during the consideration of the case. Back in June and July 2009, I was writing a working paper on IQ testing that prompted me to visit this article and several related articles on Misplaced Pages. At the time I thought, "Someone should update those articles with better sources," but I gathered sources for my own paper and communicated findings with local researchers in person and with researchers around the country by email lists, not supposing that I would get involved in Misplaced Pages editing. Reading the books How Misplaced Pages Works and Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual early in 2010 convinced me to become a wikipedian, and I happened to start editing here just before the Arbitration Committee case began. While the case was still being decided, I announced an intention to fix the related articles after the case was decided, and I've begun fixing this article or that article, as I have sources at hand and occasion to engage in the intellectually stimulating project of building an encyclopedia. There is still much to be done. The best way to fix almost any of the 6,941,198 articles on Misplaced Pages is to find reliable sources to ensure the verifiability and neutrality of point of view of each article. Any wikipedian is welcome to suggest sources to add to the source lists that can help make that possible. I'm glad to see that several editors are doing the careful detail work of checking references in the existing articles (many of which need to be verified, updated, or replaced) and checking new article edits as they proceed for adherence to the Misplaced Pages core principles. I'll keep watching this talk page and the talk page of the related articles for comments from other editors as the editing continues. All members of the Misplaced Pages community are invited to use my user talk page to comment about specifics of my ongoing ongoing clean-up efforts. I look forward to seeing the articles improve substantially in content and format through the volunteer work of many editors. Thanks for watching, and thanks for your help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Earl Hunt will have a big book on intelligence out in a month or two. It will deal with group differences, too, and I expect it will be an excellent source for R&I articles as Hunt has been an impartial and perceptive observer of the hereditarian-environmentalist melee for a long time.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Victor. aprock (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for letting everyone know. I've got Hunt's book on an online bookseller wishlist, as I recall, and I have been pinging local academic libraries for which will be purchasing it. It should be a good literature review. Oh, and I somehow saw a notice that Sternberg's Handbook of Intelligence (2000) is going to go into a second edition, to be published within the year, although I don't yet see that listed as a forthcoming book on the publisher's website. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Detterman, the long-time editor of Intelligence is also writing a book. Don't know when it will be published though.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Publisher's description of The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, the forthcoming (July 2011 publication) book I mentioned earlier. Some chapters are already available online on their authors' websites. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

placebo effect

There should be some mention of the placebo effect, since an experiment did once show that when random people did a test, men and women got similar marks, but when they were told beforehand that men usually do better, the men did do better and the women did worse by quite a lot. The test was mentioned in a book titled Psychology(by Bernstein, Penner, Clarke-Stewart, and Roy) and executed by "Spencer S., Steele, C. M., & Qiunn, D." in 1997.173.183.69.134 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's called stereotype threat, and there's a section on it in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Human Intelligence Template

WeijiBaikeBianji just removed Template:Human intelligence from this article and five other articles: Genius, Flynn effect, Neuroscience and intelligence, Creativity, and Nations and intelligence. For some articles he tried to briefly explain his reason in the edit summary. For others he didn't, including on this article. He tried once before to remove this template from Nations and intelligence , Neuroscience and intelligence And Flynn effect , and was reverted in all three cases. And hasn't tried to discuss this removal with either of the editors (Woodsrock and Miradre) who reverted him last time, before making this change again.

And he also removed the link to this article from Template:Human intelligence, and replaced it with a link to History of the race and intelligence controversy. This is the fifth time he has done this. Every other time his edits were reverted by Woodsrock or Miradre. He also has not attempted to justify this to either of them. He also replaced the link to this article with a link to the history article on Template:Race, Sociobiology, and a few other articles, reinstating his edits after they were reverted in those cases too. On the Sociobiology talk I tried to explain why I don't think these removals make sense- and eventually he stopped commenting in that thread, but 3 days later he removed the link from the template yet again.

I see his removal of the template from this article and from Creativity have already been reverted. But there needs to be an open discussion about his changes to the template itself and all of the other articles. Can anyone else see a problem here? Other editors have openly disagreed with his changes and still he persists with them. To my knowledge no one even agrees with these particular removals and changes. He isn't even trying to seek a consensus about this and is disregarding the opinions of others who disagree with him.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have put a long post on talk:Creativity detailing the connection between creativity and intelligence; in trying to find sources to show the point, it became apparent that only someone pursuing a narrow definition of intelligence (for which consensus does not exist in RS) would remove such a tag. I don't know enough of the history of this on Misplaced Pages to say if removing this tag was probably a deliberate POV move or not. Simply that it creates POV, whatever the intention. If it's the fifth time this has happened, it might be worth bringing in an uninvolved admin to take a look.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's the ninth time he's removed it. Just now he removed it from six articles at once, and before he removed it from three of them. What he's done five times is remove the link to this article from the template.

Unfortunately, I and the rest of the people involved in this dispute haven't been able to get uninvolved admins to pay attention to this, though you can certainly try yourself if you want. Otherwise, an arbitrator suggested starting an RFC/U, so I'll likely try that soon. You can participate there too, if you want.-SightWatcher (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it just this one user doing this, or are there two camps? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just WeijiBaikeBianji doing it, and at least three editors have been reverting him.-SightWatcher (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. I've reverted all but Nations and intelligence, as that seems to be a problematic article anyway; the talk page reads like an AfD. How often has WBB been doing this (i.e. over what period of time)? Slow edit wars are actionable if a persistent pattern of behaviour can be established. The edit summary grounds for removal at Neuroscience and intelligence look notably pointy and pushy: only articles which are 100% exclusively about human intelligence should, the story goes, have the template. What is the ideological reasoning behind these reverts? Is it a particular school or author that motivates them? The removal at Flynn Effect seems bizarre, unless it's someone trying to cover up well-established issues with intergenerational and cross-cultural IQ testing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WBB has a history of erratic editing like this.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the template should be in all thoise articles - except maybe the one on genius and the one on creativity.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--it should be included in those articles except the ones on genius and creativity.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for opening discussion. Let's all assume good faith here and remember the Misplaced Pages rules about discussing edits rather than the editors who post them. Please note that my edits are not based on a position that no article among these several articles with more or less close topical relationship should have a shared navigation template. Rather, the edits are based on a concern that several of these articles have just come out of an Arbitration Committee case in which there were specific findings of POV-pushing (by editors now topic-banned) and edit-warring. I think some of the articles are hardly in shape today to be prominently linked by other articles (although appropriate in-text wikilinks may be helpful to readers). Moreover, the topic relationship has yet to be defined for the template. Is Creativity really a subject that the professional literature links to Race and intelligence, or are these two topics too remote from each other to belong on the same navigation template? The template was originally added to several articles at once by a bold edit preceding any consensus, and I am similarly boldly editing to determine what the sourced consensus is. Let's continue to discuss. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Creativity testing comes out of intelligence testing (and the concept of creativity out of genius), and the debate over creativity's relationship to intelligence (part of? a product of? the super category for? the same thing as?) continues - but to say categorically that it is not part of human intelligence is to insist on taking a narrow view of what human intelligence is (i.e. solely that which is measured by contemporary IQ tests), and to claim that that narrow form includes no meaningful creative thinking component. I am not saying that that narrow view is not correct, or the most reasonable. I am saying that the RS does not support that view as being consensus by any stretch of the imagination. The same goes for the inclusion of genius in the discussion of human intelligence. It is better, encyclopedically, to have a more inclusive definition of human intelligence, and have articles that explain the relationship better, including the disputes. I have a genuinely disinterested view of the debate about intelligence and creativity, but to divorce the two would seriously misrepresent the RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that e.g. Robert Sternberg sees creativity as a central and overlooked part of intelligence, I am not sure about genius - it can mean several different things and I guess it depends on how the concept is treated. I wouldn't remove the intelligence template from either of those articles unless there is a general consensus to do so. I agree that being inclusive is a better approach.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I think its a good idea to focus on edits rather than editors. Weiji hsn't done anything out of protocol here. BRD applies.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(posted after edit conflict from rapid replies above) I appreciate VsevolodKrolikov bringing up what the sources say, which is always something we should consider as we edit Misplaced Pages. For quite a while I have been letting other editors know I think, based on the sources, that some of the article titles related to this topic are not the best match for the articles, that some of the terminology within the articles needs to be clarified whether or not a particular article title changes, and that the full breadth of professional literature on the topics has to be represented in the sourcing of the articles connected to the recent Arbitration Committee case. Taking care of those outstanding issues is far from finished. I'm glad that VsevolodKrolikov is identifying a topic (the study of creativity) in which being clear about the definition of the term "intelligence" is helpful for readers of Misplaced Pages who want to read an encyclopedia article as a guide to the professional literature. Every Misplaced Pages article ought to be encyclopedic in that sense, and make clear both the concepts and the terminology of professional scholars on the topic of the article. My friendly suggestion to all the editors here is that we should consider whether the term "intelligence" in many of the articles, and in the template under discussion, may have both narrower and broader definitions, which if distinguished would answer questions about how topics relate to "intelligence," and thus how articles relate to one another. I have more than once suggested that preexisting specialty encyclopedias on psychology or social science or relate subjects (there are several encyclopedias like these) can be good sources for sorting out terminological issues like this. Let's discuss what the sources say, and reach a consensus consistent with building an encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't agree. For example, someone like Howard Gardner is lauded by many educationalists, but disliked by others. I would argue that where there is a notable and due advocacy by academic sources of a topic being central to human intelligence broadly defined, it is included in the template. This means that multiple intelligence theory and emotional intelligence would also be included (I see that EQ has been added just recently), even if some people think it's a load of trash. Because this is the problem: a lot of people in the broad area think that a lot of other people in the broad area are writing varying degrees of trash, while their own allies doing methodologically trashy work tend to be given a free pass. We should provide the best possible opportunity to the user to find out about these disputes, rather than ring fence it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji is still edit warring over the template. Earlier today he removed it from Evolution of human intelligence, , and also removed the link to this article from the template for the sixth time. And he did this without responding to anyone here about the problems with continuing to remove it from articles. And he never addressed the points on the Sociobiology talk either, about why he shouldn't remove the links to R&I everywhere. Woodsrock has reverted him again, I see.

This rationale seems really weird to me. The reason he's giving both for removing the template from articles and for removing the link to this article from the template is because the race and intelligence article is "hardly in shape today to be prominently linked by other articles." If there's something wrong with the R&I article (which is just his own view to begin with) he should try to fix it instead of removing all of the links to R&I so that fewer people will come across it. The policy for problems on articles is to WP:SOFIXIT, not WP:SOHIDEIT. Since I've been watching this article he hasn't made much effort to improve it or suggest specific improvements to other editors, so at the moment it looks like Weiji's problem with R&I is simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

To Krolikov- WeijiBaikeBianji has been removing the template and removing the link from the template for around a month. Based on his persistence with this, and his apparent indifference to the disagreement of other editors, I think this definitely can be considered edit warring.-SightWatcher (talk) 01:46, 20 November 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 Anthropology articles
• Mid-importance Anthropology articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles