Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:30, 30 November 2020 view sourceGeneralrelative (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users17,197 edits →Sentence in clear violation of WP:OR: Reformatted.← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:51, 3 December 2020 view source Gardenofaleph (talk \| contribs)222 edits →New Source: new sectionNext edit →
Line 202:		Line 202:
	:::If we are to take them at face value, how are these geographic comparisons relevant to the topic of "Race and intelligence"? –] ] 03:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)		:::If we are to take them at face value, how are these geographic comparisons relevant to the topic of "Race and intelligence"? –] ] 03:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
	::::I agree that geography is not the same as race. In particular, geography is physical reality and race is a social construct. However, casting aspersions on the continent of Africa is a form of racism. ] (]) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)		::::I agree that geography is not the same as race. In particular, geography is physical reality and race is a social construct. However, casting aspersions on the continent of Africa is a form of racism. ] (]) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

			== New Source ==

			Hello,

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

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

			] (]) 20:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:51, 3 December 2020

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.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104Auto-archiving period: 14 days

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.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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
April 11, 2011	Articles for deletion	Kept
February 24, 2020	Deletion review	Overturned
February 29, 2020	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 multiple 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

	Psychology portal 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

	Society portal 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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
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.

Ethnic groups

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

Biology

	Biology portal Race and intelligence is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

Philosophy

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.
Doug Gross (July 24, 2013). "Wiki wars: The 10 most controversial Misplaced Pages pages". CNN. Archived from the original on July 27, 2013. Retrieved July 27, 2013. Circumcision and "race and intelligence," both with obvious controversy attached, made the list, alongside a possibly more surprising page: a list of professional wrestlers on the roster of World Wrestling Entertainment.
Justin Ward (March 12, 2018). "Misplaced Pages wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on March 12, 2018. Retrieved March 17, 2018. In the article on "race and intelligence," relatively equal weight is given to the two sides of the debate — hereditarian and environmentalist — though environmentalism is the mainstream perspective in psychology.

Section sizes

Section size for Race and intelligence (31 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	2,627	2,627
History of the controversy	3,119	11,838
Early IQ testing	3,763	3,763
The Pioneer Fund and The Bell Curve	4,956	4,956
Conceptual issues	25	12,777
Intelligence and IQ	3,402	3,402
Race	9,350	9,350
Group differences	2,017	11,749
Test scores	6,620	6,620
Flynn effect and the closing gap	3,112	3,112
Environmental factors	26	28,726
Health and nutrition	8,895	8,895
Education	4,630	4,630
Socioeconomic environment	3,656	3,656
Test bias	2,671	2,671
Stereotype threat and minority status	8,848	8,848
Research into possible genetic factors	4,981	27,192
Genetics of race and intelligence	4,001	4,001
Heritability within and between groups	4,588	4,588
Spearman's hypothesis	3,826	3,826
Adoption studies	4,255	4,255
Racial admixture studies	2,450	2,450
Mental chronometry	1,939	1,939
Brain size	937	937
Archaeological data	215	215
Policy relevance and ethics	2,717	2,717
See also	142	142
References	18	50,123
Notes	28	28
Citations	31	31
Bibliography	50,046	50,046
Total	147,891	147,891

Edit War Warning

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

I'm not interested in humoring this game. You know exactly where, and if not, this talk page and its archive are already filled to the brim with tedious discussions of this exact issue. Asking for special treatment is tendentious. Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell (talk · contribs) is entirely correct here and in their recent comment above. I will, however, in the hope that it might put this dispute to bed, offer a few additional sources. First I'll direct Truth is King (talk · contribs) to a Harvard University blog post from 2017 entitled "How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century": ] I'm suggesting this first not because it's the most reliable of sources but rather because I think it's highly explanatory of the current consensus among geneticists on "race". For a deep dive into the science by a respected geneticist (whose other work is discussed in the section Race_and_intelligence#Genetics_of_race_and_intelligence), see Alan Templeton, "Biological Races in Humans": ]. This is of course not the only article I might cite to support the consensus view, but it's an especially well argued one by an authoritative source, and it's open-access so you can read it online free of charge. On the other end of the spectrum, even David Reich (among prominent geneticists, perhaps the most sympathetic to retaining some aspects of the "race" concept –– although it should be noted that his usage is entirely in line with Grayfell's statement here: ], and with the findings of the recent RfC on race and intelligence linked above) refers to the dismissal of race by geneticists as a "consensus" three times in the following op-ed: ] I hope that's informative. None of this is meant to imply that Grayfell didn't already answer your initial question directly here: ] but rather to add some additional perspective on the issue for you or anyone else who may be curious. Generalrelative (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative OK. I'm not going to take this any farther, for now. So, there is no need to respond - I guess in a way no need to even read this. But, just for the record I would like to address your points. But, first, I would like to thank you for at least going to the effort. Thank you.

First, the issue here is, is the following statement reliably sourced: "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." It seems to me that none of the cited references and none of the references you indicate support this statement, because it goes farther than anything said in any of those references. It is not just saying that there is a consensus against a genetic component. It says that there is a consensus that there is "no evidence" of a genetic component. That is an extremely strong statement, and goes beyond anything that even the Harvard blogpost states (which appears to go further to support the statement than any of the currently cited references). I would say, add that to the citations, but you are right - for numerous reasons it is not a reliable source. The Templeton article does not say it. None of the references say that there is a scientific consensus of "no evidence." If I am wrong, show me where, because I would like to know. If you cannot, then, again, no need to respond. David Reich, in the editorial refers to consensus in the past tense and states: "t is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus ..." — certainly not an endorsement that there is currently a consensus. With respect to Grayfell's response in the other article: 1) that was referring to a different statement in a different article; 2) Neither of the two references he indicated stated that there was a consensus of any sort. Other references in the article did make a reasonable case for a consensus among American anthropologists.Truth is King 23:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I thank you for agreeing to respect the consensus here, and will just note that my last comment was meant to address the scientific consensus that racial classifications of humans are a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one. With regard to the scientific consensus that there is no evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence, I'd direct you to ]: There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences. This is from Nature, and all of the more recent sources cited in the present article (I believe) only confirm it. I've recently added this reference to Heritability of IQ in order to satisfy the sticklers and may add it to the citation stack in this article too for the same reason. Generalrelative (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:U:Generalrelative Thank you for taking this seriously, and I appreciate your effort in finding that article. Certainly the journal Nature is a reliable source. But there is a problem, and that is the age of the reference. In many fields, perhaps most, ten years is not that long a period of time. But in the field of human genetics and evolution, everything has changed in the past ten years with the introduction of far more sophisticated and powerful equipment and techniques. If you have not read Who We Are and How We Got Here, really and truly, consider reading it. Harvesting DNA from ancient skeletons and GWAS studies were introduced after that article was published. It is important. That may be why you had to go back so far to find a statement like that in a prominent journal.Truth is King 01:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If you seriously believe that there is no longer a consensus that race is a social construct and no longer a consensus that there is no evidence showing that some races are genetically more intelligent than others, then the onus is on YOU to provide sources that show that fringe theories are no longer fringe. It is not our job to continually provide newer sources for this, any more than it would be to provide newer sources that abduction of humans by extraterrestrials is still a fringe view. NightHeron (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

+1 to what NightHeron has said. Further, I have indeed read Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here and will note that it in no way supports the arguments Truth Is King 24 has attempted to make here and at Scientific racism. See Who_We_Are_and_How_We_Got_Here#Reception for a balanced assessment of this book. Generalrelative (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron:,@Generalrelative:Both of your statements, taken in context, are absurd. First, GR, all I've said is that statements made in these two articles are not supported by reliable sources. Of course, Reich did not address that issue. His book was not about Misplaced Pages articles. Other than arguments that it would be absurd to imagine would be addressed in his book, exactly what arguments have I made that Reich did not support? NH, the issue is, are the statements supported by reliable sources? If you had reliable sources in the first place, you might have a point. But not only is the Nature piece old, it is also an opinion piece. The author mentions a "growing consensus," indicating a condition that is developing, and not yet fully formed. And the author offers no evidence to support his statement. It is, at best, a casual observation that the author makes in the process of further argumentation on a different point. For those reasons, in addition to its age, it is not a reliable source. Finally, you have chosen something ridiculous as an example of a fringe belief. But the heliocentric planetary system, the microscopic organism theory of contagious disease, and the spread of malaria by mosquitoes were all once fringe theories, and are now universally accepted. Often, it is the development of better equipment and analytical techniques that leads to a once fringe belief becoming accepted. In the field of human evolution, there has been a revolution of better techniques over the past 10 years. It seems that there is some sense here that I have said a lot more than I really have. Disputing the support from reliable sources is not the same as disputing the truth of the statement that appears to be unsupported. It is important, in an encyclopedia, and particularly on a contentious issue, that every statement be supported by reliable sourcing. I would hope that we could all agree on that. And all I have done is to question the support from the cited sources. If I question that support, and an editor is able to find a reliable source to support that statement, I would hope that we would all agree that this would improve Misplaced Pages. And if the result is to change the statement, so that it is something that is supported by reliable sources, then that makes Misplaced Pages more authoritative, also a positive goal.Truth is King 15:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting involved in a tedious argument involving a user who put "truth" in their nick, but I thought it worth observing that no one is obligated to personally satisfy you about the wrongness of your view; it's enough that there be a consensus. --JBL (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Why has the name of this article been changed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doug Weller, Nukemason2 seems nice. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

He was blocked for page move vandalism. There was a discussion in 2006 and JMF was involved in a recent discussion in March.

I don't edit this article and am not going to give my opinion, just the evidence. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sentence in clear violation of WP:OR

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

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

This is absurd—and, if true, means referring to IQ tests as "intelligence tests", as is done throughout the article, also violates NPOV. Indeed, just the phrase "IQ test" would be a violation. Intelligence tests are designed to quantify human intelligence—whether they're accurate, or even whether "intelligence" is a definable and measurable quality, are different issues. There is a real debate about the existence of "g", but no one is twisting themselves into logical and rhetorical knots trying to censor the phrase "g-loaded tests". Ditto with "race" and the extent to which it exists and can be validly measured. But this kind of blatant WP:POV editing and WP:CENS does our encyclopedia a grave disservice. Elle Kpyros (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The original wording is correct, "a difference of 1.1 standard deviations" is mathematically equivalent to "86% of the test-takers identifying ...as black". The only assumption necessary for this to be the case is that IQ is normally distributed, which is not contentious. Such a trivial equivalence statement does not require a source - the only controversy here stems from the implications of the statement, and this reversion only serves to force the socially acceptable POV that pervades this article and much of wikipedia regarding racially sensitive topics. Disservice indeed. LikelyLory (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please be civil; your angry tone and accusations of censorship are inappropriate. You're missing the point. The term "intelligence tests" is a commonly used synonym for IQ tests, whether or not they measure intelligence. But calling them "tests of human intelligence" is expressing an opinion in wikivoice that is controversial. There are many examples where a change in wording converts a common term to something that's controversial or simply wrong. The MacArthur Fellowship Program is popularly called the "genius grants", but calling them "awards made to geniuses" in wikivoice would be stating a questionable opinion, since most of the awardees, admirable though they may be, are not what most people mean by "genius". The common term for the US baseball championship is the "World Series", but calling the winning team the "champion of the world" in wikivoice would violate WP:Global, since the US and one Canadian team are not the world. NightHeron (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the way NightHeron has characterized the operative distinction here. This may seem like a subtle point in the abstract, but the illustrations (genius grants, World Series) make clear that such changes in wording can create semantic pitfalls in certain contexts. It's also important for us to remember that this is a contentious topic, so extra care to assume good faith here on the Talk page is warranted. Generalrelative (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron is right on this issue. We should also refrain from calling IQ tests "intelligence tests" or "test of intelligence", as it is contentious if they measure intelligence and to what extent they do. We cannot be too neutral in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your examples do not support your conclusion. "Genius grants" are not explicitly designed to measure for and select geniuses, that synonym is effectively a colloquialism. The "World Series" does not actually measure beyond the border of the US. In contrast we have the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) which is explicitly designed as a rigorous metric for intelligence - IQ tests are by definition "tests of human intelligence". That you disagree with how accurate or valid IQ tests are does not remove them from the category of "tests of human intelligence" - especially considering that their general validity is supported by a wealth rigorous, consistent circumstantial and empirical evidence. LikelyLory (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The presumption of "general validity" here is actually false. See the carefully balanced discussion at Intelligence quotient#Validity as a measure of intelligence, in particular the statement by Wayne Weiten: IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable. Note that this statement is WP:RS/WP:TERTIARY because it is from a recent, respected] textbook, not an individual study, and therefore can be taken as representative of the field. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For an example of the kind of WP:PRIMARY research that supports this overview, see e.g. ]: Historically, research into the biological basis of intelligence has been limited by a circular logic regarding the definition of what exactly intelligence is. More specifically, general intelligence may sensibly be defined as the factor or factors that contribute to an individual’s ability to perform across a broad range of cognitive tasks. In practice, however, intelligence is typically defined as “g,” which in turn is defined as the measure taken by classical pen and paper IQ tests such as Raven’s matrices (Raven, 1938) or the Cattell Culture Fair (Cattell, 1949). If a more diverse set of paradigms are applied and, as a consequence, a more diverse set of first-order components are derived, the conventional approach is to run a second-order factor analysis in order to generate a higher-order component. In order for the battery to be considered a good measure of general intelligence, this higher-order component should correlate with “g” as measured by a classical IQ test. The results presented here suggest that such higher-order constructs should be used with caution. On the one hand, a higher-order component may be used to generate a more interpretable first-order factor solution, for example, when cognitive tasks load heavily on multiple components. On the other hand, the basis of the higher-order component is ambiguous and may be accounted for by cognitive tasks corecruiting multiple functionally dissociable brain networks. Consequently, to interpret a higher-order component as representing a dominant unitary factor is misleading. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Concur -----Snowded 07:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems like a case where a new user is simply unaware that WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is not permitted. Thanks for explaining so clearly how the policy applies in this context, Skllagyook. Generalrelative (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

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

There is no edit war at the moment but if you insert those changes again without agreement you will get a warning for edit warring and that can lead to a block. Lynn is a highly controversial figure and without more third party citations that material has no place here. -----Snowded 18:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Further, these figures are not just controversial, they are unscientifically sourced. See, e.g. the 2020 European Human Behavior and Evolution Association statement that these figures are fundamentally unsound and unreliable.] The WP article where these figures are discussed, Nations and intelligence quotient, still needs a ton of work to eliminate lingering WP:PROFRINGE, but that is no reason to allow PROFRINGE to creep back into this article. Generalrelative (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Abedidos: (I concur with the replies of the two editors above.) And I'm afraid what may be cited on websites and other publications is not relevant here. On Misplaced Pages there are policies governing the inclusion and use of sources. The deletion is not based on my personal opinions, but on Misplaced Pages policies. The findings of Richard Lynn, as mentioned, are considered highly controversial-dubious and disputed (see the article on him linked here above). Your addition gives undue prominence to controversial material that is not broadly accepted, and considered by many to be WP:FRINGE (and the work of Lynn was determined to be fringe in this Misplaced Pages RFC discussion, see here: ] . For more information, please see WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MAINSTREAM. Skllagyook (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Genuine question: if these figures are controversial in the field, doesn't that suggest that they are notable and likely deserve mention in the article (along with appropriate context and criticism, of course)?

Anyways, here is one study that attempts a more precise and systematic review of the the literature than Lynn's work, with respect to sub-Saharan Africans specifically. Does anyone have institutional access to read the full report? One snippet says: Our review of the literature on the performance of Africans on the Raven's tests showed that the average IQ of Africans on the Raven's tests is lower than the average IQ in western countries. However, the average IQ of Africans is not as low as Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy (2008) maintained. Can we agree at least on this study's claim that the average IQ of Africans is lower than the average IQ in western countries? That seems uncontroversial, as I haven't seen any studies that show otherwise. And of course we should also take care to include the relevant context and criticism about the uncertain reliability of IQ tests in other countries due to cultural factors, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is WP:FRINGE, not notability. Of course scientific racism is notable, and we have a long article on it. So is creationism, climate change denial, and alien abduction. NightHeron (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If we are to take them at face value, how are these geographic comparisons relevant to the topic of "Race and intelligence"? –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that geography is not the same as race. In particular, geography is physical reality and race is a social construct. However, casting aspersions on the continent of Africa is a form of racism. NightHeron (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

New Source

Hello,

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

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

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

^ Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, Richard and Tatu (11/28/2020). "IQ and Global Inequality" (PDF). Wordpress.com. Retrieved 11/28/2020. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Categories: