Talk:Dysgenics

I added a blurb on the way the word seems to be used in modern biology. Though "dysgenics" does seem to still refer to genetic deterioration.

I'm also looking for how dysgenics fit in with modern population genetics. - unsigned on 07:01, 2 August 2005 by User:Flammifer

Dysgenic Fallacy & Global IQ

Methinks it is necessary to note that such an equilibrium as mentioned in said section would only occur if each group has a uniform birth-rate. This is not the case today on a global scale, and should be noted as such.

Any good sources that could be cited to lend credence to this? Skirnir (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

References

There are several papers on this subject that I looked at a while back. Fisher, Medawar and A. W. F. Edwards spring to mind, but I may be wrong... I'll check when I have time. - Samsara 14:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk about IQ as nurture wrong for the article

Talk of IQ as a result of schooling has nothing to do with dysgenics. Though the degree to which that is a factor is debatable that debate is not suited to the article nor are assumptions outside the posited subject of the article. I believe there is too much talk about the human condition as a factor of nurture on an individual level; dysgenics would be a result of nurture effecting the outcome of our nature inherently, not the direct influence of nurture as an averse effect of an individual nature, but as an intrinsic quality passing on to each generation. I think there should be less talk about IQ in this article altogether and more in the lines of potential maladies along topics of Genetic drift & Population bottleneck in relation to the overall human genome. Nagelfar 00:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The author makes several assumptions about IQ that are far from unequivocal, including the extent to which IQ tests measure it, and its inheritability. Moreover, the term suggests a weakening of biological fitness: enhanced intelligence is no match for a virus, bacteria or other environmental danger for which modern medicine does not allow natural selection to weed out the less fit. It seems that in fact those in "less modern" societies would be less vulnerable to dysgenics since they are more exposed to natural stresses. The article needs the contribution of an expert with greater control over the terms, phenomena and mechanisms. Kemet 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The better IQ tests measure intelligence with 80% accuracy. Intelligence is for 80% heritable. I'd suggest going to the appropriate main articles before dealing with fringe articles like this one if you have valid sources that have different findings. You might find one or two 'experts' there as well.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what the two of you are talking about. Could you word your exact problems with the article in a clearer manner? --Zero g 13:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an absurd statement. What's your independent assessment of intelligence? How do you know IQ tests measure it accurately? This whole page seems to be full of pseudo-scientific rubbish like the above. That's my problem with it. Graft 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a bit in the IQ and race and intelligence articles this article borrows from. I'd suggest taking the ideological POV pushing to the rubbish of those articles. --Zero g 01:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The current version of this article appears to me to be biased towards the point of view that these trends (a) exist and (b) are caused by the mechanisms outlined in the article, both of which are views which are enormously controversial. This article needs substantial editing to conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- The Anome 13:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please find studies demonstrating that the trends (a) do not exist or (b) are not caused by the mechanisms presented in the article, and, if you are able to do this, put them in. Given the current presence of evidence in favor of the trends and their mechanisms, and further given the absence of mitigating evidence, the article as it stands is not POV and should not be labeled as controversial. Harkenbane 00:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week, and I'm reverting the NPOV edit. (If necessary, I can locate additional studies on the subject for inclusion in the article, but the ones I'm familiar with gave results similar to those already given in the article.) If anyone knows of studies which contradict the findings of a small but significant dysgenic trend with respect to IQ, please find them and add them to the article. Harkenbane 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is notable that while dysgenics confers a disadvantage in microevolution, relaxation of natural selection (the supposed underlying cause) e.g. following a mass extinction seems to be strongly correlated with macroevolution, and indeed may be one of only two possible prerequisites for the latter (the other is evolution of a feature, e.g. ability to breathe air, that opens up completely novel ecological niches). So all the brouhaha is shockingly unimportant outside the field of (human) population genetics. Keeping your gene pool tidy will help squat in surviving the million years following a major bolide impact while being a freak actually helps. It is very questionable whether dysgenics is anything but a condition which only can occur in humans, if the pont where it becomes a problem will be reached at all in a natural environment. All the "maladaptations" that were earlier presented as result of "bad breeding" like the dodo and whatnot have turned out to be devoid of scientific merit. Dysmorodrepanis 10:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The dodo is a pretty good example of dysgenics. While currently a mass extinction event is unlikely to wipe out mankind it might be a possibility if things get much worse in the distant future. Near sightedness might evolve to be much worse. Ceasarian sections might become necesary in the majority of births. Dependency on medical healthcare might become the norm as well as needing dental care. Take civilization away and you'd have a blind, teethless, feeble minded, sickly population that can hardly give birth, following the dodo in its lead. --Zero g 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a voice... to say the article is POV as currently formulated is insane. The bulk of the article is about the academic and literary history of the term. It's embarassing to WP to have a non-compliance tag on this article. (I agree that it doesn't seem to be a *great* article yet, but that's no crime.) 140.247.163.157 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

POV tag removed

After some re-editing, this page appears objective if not controvercial, based on the assumpion of good faith in the research. However, the citations and references seem a bit vague and I believe that tag is still relevant.

It seems that this article would beneift by a well supported paragraph or two documenting the critisisms of dysgenics.

Kevin Murray 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough there is no criticism that I know of, then again, media portrayal on the subject is non existent, so I asume nobody bothered to try to discredit something few people know anything about to being with. Possibly there could be a section about the media portrayal of the subject. --Zero g 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no justification for the inclusion of the POV tag.

MoritzB 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Noncompliant

I added the noncompliant tag.

• Because of the association of this and similar ideas (The Bell Curve) with racism, extraordinary care must be given to securing the highest quality sources for any assertion that could be considered controversial. Since this is a scientific (or pseudoscientific) topic, I think that means that it should be based on peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journal articles. Please review WP:V and WP:RS.
• The first section "Dysgenic decline in intelligence" seems to suggest that educational achievement is correlated with intelligence; instead educational achievement is much more highly correlated with social and economic background.
• No citation is given for Vining's 1982 study. Was it discussed or criticized in the scientific literature subsequently?
• Dysgenics Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Richard Lynn, Praeger Publishers, 1996, is not a reliable source, in my opinion. No article for Praeger Publishers exists on Wikipedia. The Praeger Publishers main page does not suggest high editorial standards to me. [1] Moreover, the title is not available on Amazon.com. [2] ISBN 0275949176
• The footnotes are in an odd format and are incomplete citations. Moreover, two of them are newpapers articles (not scientific journal articles) and the third is a blog.
• Schockley was a physicist and his ideas were discredited in the scientific literature, not merely "unfavorably portrayed in the press".

--Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I'd love to see a peer-reviewed mainstream scientific source confirming that dysgenics is indeed associated with racism. There are also many scientific articles on Wikipedia that aren't based on (often non existent) peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.

2. I know little about Vinings study. That the next study took 20 years to take place should give a good indication in the general scientific interest in this topic. I think you'll find more research about the Orchard Swallowtail Butterfly.

3. It's indeed not a reliable source, in your opinion that is, which you are entitled to. It's a valid source however, and given there are only a handful of sources on the subject to begin with it's ridiculous to suggest we remove the little we have.

4. The beloved blog entry was one of the 'critical' sources I think.

5. You mean his ideas were "discredited" in the scientific literature I think ;)

All in all I think your argumentation is weak. I'm also not sure if it's your interest to actually improve this article, since you are not offering any supposedly better qualified sources as substitutes. --Zero g 09:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't use biased sources or ones that fail WP:RS and WP:V simply because there are no sources that are relaible and are within our policy of neutral point of view. Regardless of the attempt to balance the article, blogs are definitely not reliable as sources. The article as it stands in unencyclopedic since it based primarily on unreliable sources.--MONGO 10:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem badly informed, the sources are in fact reliable despite Wsiegmund's claims to the contrary. The blog is not a source and listed under 'notes' which makes me wonder, did you actually bother to read the article before Wsiegmund summoned you? Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Zero g 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the article and find it to be based on a lot of POV research, much of which is not to be trusted. It doesn't matter where the blog is, blogs are worthless for inclusion in article space.--MONGO 12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then remove the link to the blog, not like the article falls or stands with it. Do you have any proof that the research is.. POV? Lynn's research is used in various articles and regarded as a respectable scientist, it's quite the accusation you make there really.

If you desire a different article the proper route is to find sources to research that backs up your personal POV. --Zero g 12:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is not consistent with my reading of the Wikipedia Policy in this regard (WP:V). "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If Richard Lynn is a respectable scientist, then he published in peer-reviewed journals. Why aren't his papers that are relevant cited? The fact that major university libraries such as Columbia, Ohio State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Washington, and Dartmouth College do not appear to list Dysgenics Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations in their catalogs, along with its unavailability on Amazon, suggests that many Wikipedia editors do not have access to the work and cannot verify the article content that is based on that source. The fact that Dysgenics is not a topic of significant scientific interest or research, which seems not to be disputed, is an important fact, I think. It should appear in the introduction to the article. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Lynn article: Richard Lynn was educated at Cambridge University, and has published at least 11 books, several book chapters, and over 60 peer-reviewed journal articles spanning five decades. Two of his recent books are written on dysgenics and eugenics, and are prominent works in those areas.

That there's little interest for the topic seems to be the case. --Zero g 16:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because one fellow wrote a book about Dysgenics, doesn't mean it has any science to it. If there has been zero fellow peers that are trained in such matters to support his findings, then all he has is a hypothesis and nothing more. Looking at the article on Richard Lynn, it definitely appears his hypothesis on Dysgenics has some published critics as well. I would really like to see his DNA evidence that backs up his thoughts that the darker the skin of African Americans = lower IQ. No doubt, the slave trade brought Africans to North America from different areas of Africa, and from what I learned when working on my degree is that there are at least 120 different "groups" of sub-saharan Africans, some which had been genetically isolated from each other for many thousands of years, or, in excess of 100 generations even. What I'm getting at is since this person is the only one of any repute who has written a book on the matter, it needs to be made clear that this is not a science, but a hypothesis...if even that.--MONGO 06:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenics is a well defined scientific concept backed up by all the studies on evolution, mutation and heritability. The only real criticism comes from mainstream religions (are you a creationist by chance?) who tend to target the evolution theory, and reductionists who state that negative and positive traits do not exist.

Dysgenics as a concept also needs no book to define it, given it's described in most dictionaries. What's left in that case are studies measuring dysgenic decline, which are listed in this article. Whether that be intelligence or the ever increasing number of near sighted people. It's odd that few people bother to research this area, but I don't think that discredits those who do. --Zero g 08:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been searching around for anything substantive that supports Lynn's findings and I see none, therefore, there is no science here, only his hypothesis. When other researchers who have knowledge in this field also chime in either in agreement or disagreement, and a resultant finding of fact occurs, then there might be credence to his work or a dismissal of it. Until then, it's important that we accurately label the information here as being what it is, and that is merely a hypothesis. No, I'm not a creationist.--MONGO 09:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you find problematic? That allele frequencies change, that mutations occur, or that traits can be classified as positive / negative? Given that the concept of dysgenics borrows most or all of its scientific foundation from evolutionary theories your suggested changes are controversial because it implies that humans somehow don't abide to evolutionary changes?

You also seem to misunderstand the nature of the research. Statistical research is not a hypothesis, it's an observation. Are you implying Lynn pulled the results of the study out of thin air? And if the findings are so controversial why aren't there any studies disproving the findings by showing results that proof differently? All in all the findings of these studies are worth mentioning, but I guess a Criticism section could be added noting that due to the lack of broad scientific research in this area the results might not be representative, and other objections you may find.

While this would possibly be OR if you can't find valid sources making these claims I won't object if it's done fairly, for the sake of NPOV. --Zero g 10:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A discussion related to this one occurred recently at Talk:Eugenics. [3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That discussion is even worse than this one, when it comes to consensus. Any suggestions what to do with the tags?

The topic being unencyclopedic doesn't stand and I'm going to remove it soon.

The request for an expert doesn't stand cause we've established that there's a neglectable amount of research, which means there are even fewer experts.

I think we've also established that the few main sources used are valid.

I'd say I remove the link to the blog, remove the tags, and perhaps open up a new topic on how to actually improve the article if there's any interest. --Zero g 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources listed under "Notes" mention "dysgenics", or even posit a dysgenic theory. Under "References", Shockley is not a credible source. Do Teasdale and Owen mention "dygenics" by name? Other than Lynn, I don't see much else that we can use as a reliable expert. If there are no verifiable, reliable sources then we should cut this article down to what we can verify. -Will Beback 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. http://www.amazon.com/Shockley-Eugenics-Race-Application-Problems/dp/1878465031 looks like a valid source to me, besides that the book isn't by Shockley himself, besides, if he did write books on the subject it'd likely be credible.

2. The 3 links in the notes section can be removed if there's no objection.

3. According to google Teasdale and Owen are linked to dysgenics, didn't look into the actual pages (yet) though.

4. So far there's nothing to cut back. --Zero g 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenics Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations by Richard Lynn does not satisfy WP:V, to wit, "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Since this book is not available from most libraries, even from major university libraries, it fails this criterion. I think Wikipedia policy requires that content based on this source be removed, unless an alternative source that is available to readers can be found. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the abstract of the Teasdale & Owen paper: [4] It apparently concludes that a lowering of scores in intelligence tests is due to less education, not dygenics. That was properly summarized here"[5]. While the citation may be relevant to the Flynn Effect, I don't see its relevance here. The theory that the Flynn Effect masks dysgenics needs a source. As for the Shockly book, he's listed as the co-author on Amazon [6]. So far as I am aware, he had no credentials in the field of intelligence. Does anyone here even have a copy? -Will Beback 05:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge tagged

Since Richard Lynn is about the only person who has written about this subject, and it is not a recognized as a science, in keeping with the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV, I see no reason that the gist of this can't be covered in the article about the major author on the subject.--MONGO 06:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the term has been used since the early 20th century this is a very bad idea, besides, Lynn isn't the only one who wrote on the subject. --Zero g 17:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, given the problems recently encountered at J. Philippe Rushton, I'd say this is a very bad idea indeed. To some, what Lynn does *is* recognized science, and this where all the trouble will start.--Ramdrake 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is not science. The entire dysgenics argument is preposterous due to the unreliability of all data. It's junk science and just because someone may have done good work in one area of research, doesn't mean that this exempts them from being found negligent in this one. The only place this article deserves to be is in the Richard Lynn article, since he is the only one who is accredited as doing any recent examination on the issue. I'll take care of the merge here shortly.--MONGO 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please heed the consensus here and at Richard Lynn which goes against the merge. In all likelihood, if you go ahead with the merge, it will be reverted. "Because it's a bad article" is not a reason to compound a biography with the problems in this article.--Ramdrake 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel this article is that bad, just nominate it for deletion.--Ramdrake 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Links

I'll be copying some links here that might be of interest. --Zero g 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/LynnPINC.htm - Review of Richard LYNN, 1996, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations.

Relevance?

I removed this line:

• During World War II the United States had difficulty training low-IQ military recruits; this led Congress to ban enlistment by those from the lowest 10 percent (an IQ below 80) of the population. [7]

Because it doesn't not have anything to do with dysgenics. -Will Beback 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant to historic claims that world wars are dysgenic. --Zero g 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Says who? It isn't in Gottfredson. -Will Beback 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

David Starr Jordan wrote about it, it adds to the hypothesis. Your perseverance to remove it does as well I guess. --Zero g 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jordan wrote that World War II was a dysgenic force? Then why are we using Gottfredson as the source? If Jordan didn't write about it then we're engaged in original research. I'm not sure what you meant by your last remark. Please explain. -Will Beback 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it was you who deleted that section at first because it was unsourced. Gottfredson didn't mention it, however, on the effect of world wars it was noted that the fit fought and died at the front while the disabled stayed at home. So that's where the quote fits as an example of the disabled / challenged staying at home. If that particular instance is actually dysgenic or not isn't a concern until someone actually claims it is.

I'm curious though, given you don't find the article relevant as a whole, are some parts more relevant than others? --Zero g 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which article you're talking about. If Gottfredson is not the source for the association of dysgenics with WWII then we need to find a source that does. -Will Beback 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• During World War II the United States had difficulty training low-IQ military recruits, leading Congress to ban enlistment by those from the lowest 10 percent (an IQ below 80) of the population. [8] This extended Jordan's believes to those of low intelligence being excluded from warfare.

According to whom does this extend Jordan's beliefs? This fact seems to be put in to try to prove the subject of this article, not to report what reliable sources have said about it. As evidence it is inconclusive, even given the theory of dysgenics, as we don't know what proportion of men survived and reproduced from the various intelligence ranges, or whether they were otherwise fit to be good fathers. In any case, it's original research in this context and dos not belong in this article. -Will Beback 01:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No conclusions are drawn, this addition is of the same nature as the recent addition hinting at Shockley being a racist. Besides, the sourced statement falls within the scope of the article.

I once again strongly suggest finding sources that indicate that 1) a study found no dysgenic trends. 2) That the influence of dysgenic trends is neglectable and hence nothing to worry about. 3) Researchs that indicates that traits like health and intelligence aren't heritable. 4) Historical dysgenic research that has been proven to be biased. 5) Sources proving modern research is biased. 6) Whatever else you can think of that falls within the scope of the article.

The only problem with the text is that you don't like what it says. If you tried, instead of deleting stuff you don't like, to actually do some research and look into expanding the article (even if it only supports your particular pov) you might actually make a useful contribution. --Zero g 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgnenics is nonsense

The term is supported only by persons with a completely erroneous misunderstanding of IQ testing as a means to establish intelligence and by racist misunderstadings about what constitites a race. "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund." SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN February 1995 Volume 272[9]--MONGO 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Using your own reasoning this cannot be included because there is no mention of dysgenics.

The same goes for the statement that "It is not a topic of significant scientific research" which lacks a source as well. --Zero g 10:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That "it is not a topic of significant scientific research" is amply demonstrated by the lack of sources from the scientific peer-reviewed literature. If they exist, please add them to the article. As written, the main source for the article is criticized in the harshest possible terms in the Scientific American quotation. Do you think that a Wikipedia article should be based on such a source? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A book review by Chris Brand has been added as a reference.[10] Brand is notable for being fired by Edinburgh University in 1997 for conduct that had allegedly "brought the university into disrepute." According to the web link, a personal web site not meeting the minimal standards of WP:V, the book review was first published in the Internet magazine, PINC (Politically Incorrect).[11] The editorial policy of PINC is, in part, "Material that is published here is published because the editors consider it interesting and worthy of debate, not because they believe it to be "correct" or "virtuous".[12] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has doubts about this being an area that deserves coverage should see the undue weight clause of our neutral point of view policy...clearly, "Dysgenics" is not a science since it is not embraced except from some fringe elements and, well, bigots, to be frank. I'll quote the undue weight clause that is appropriate in this situation: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."--MONGO 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While being highly controversial, I believe "dysgenics" does exist at least as a concept entertained in some scientiic circles, as Google Scholar finds at least 150 references to it: [13]. After all, the book Race, Evolution and Behavior has itw own WP article, while at the same time beign extremely controversial and decried. I don't think we can censor a word out of Wikipedia just because we don't like its connotations. Phrenology is definitely not a science, but it has its own article, and some other articles actually link to it. So, what is the problem?--Ramdrake 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the misuse of the term in related articles. It never appeares in the scientific literature when discussing the topic of human extinction or regressive genetic situations aside from when folks like Richard Lynn and Chris Brand try to use it as their basis of IQ=race mythology. They know nothing of genetics and the differences between whites and blacks "involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being" [14]--MONGO 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This was added to the intro: The term has not been accepted by biologists as a descriptive term to describe a regressive genetic tendency. If one just follows this link or that one, one will see that this statement is patently false. Even though dysgenicity is strictly theoretical in humans, it is a valid concept, even thouhg it also has been misused by racists. So, I'll be removing the sentence.--Ramdrake 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Then stop re-adding links back to this article in those articles that deal with human evolution...it is not germane to those articles. The persons currently trying to apply this term to a race=IQ basis only show their lack of understanding...as I said, the entire genetic difference in skin pigmentation and probably most other differences that are externalized, and related biological changes in the DNA from whites and blacks is only 1 DNA letter out of 3.1 billion, as linked above. Lynn and Brand must have zero knowledge of economic/availablity/quality level issues of educational opportunities among different regions/demographics in the U.S. and elsewhere. Besides, turning this article into one which in anyway embraces Lynn's and others stereotyping of traditional racist ideology is not the direction this article should be going..that is if I don't nominate it for deletion for it's inability to meet the undue weight clause of NPOV.--MONGO 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The only external link I re-added treated dysgenics as a purely hypothetical process in humans, which is correct. Apart from that, I just reinstated internal links to the dysgenics article so that the word could be understood. This is much better than eradicating the word because its use in human genetics is too often associated with racism. If you want something to do to really help the anti-racist viewpoint, may I ask you take a look at the Race and intelligence suite of articles? We could really use some help on NPOV there.--Ramdrake 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No thanks...all we need to do is keep this term out of the human evolution articles...it is not one with any basis in fact and aside from biased research, it does not have anything to do with human evolution.--MONGO 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that the research is biased, or is this some kind of personal conspiracy theory of yours? --Zero g 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased research is usually done by biased researchers and as I continue to work on this article, maybe you'll learn something about the facts of the case here.--MONGO 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Theory of Eugenics of which this appears to be a subset was disproved a long time ago. it is a great example of psuedo science and it is a great example of what happens when people fall for psuedo science. But the belief that the gene pool is weakening is simply unsupported. If anything, recent (i.e. since jet travel was invented) racial mixing is strenghtening the gene pool by recombining isolated genes and increasing variation. Biologists mix breeds to enhance the hardiness of endangered species such as the Mexican Gray Wolf to enhance it's chance of survival. --Tbeatty 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

neither hybrid vigor nor outbreeding depression can be predicted a priori. --Rikurzhen 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. I believe the MGW case is more of a suppression of inbreeding which is more predictable. You certainly couldn't extrapolate the effects of a very small gene pool like the MGW to the large pool of human beings. But it's also why the dysgenic theory is so preposterous. I am not a biologist but I have seen one on TV.  :) Tbeatty 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

check chapter 12 of Narrow Roads in Gene Land for W.D. Hamilton's theories about the dysgenic effects of modern medicine. --Rikurzhen 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenics is nonsense only if natural selection is nonsense. Any factor which favors survival until the age of reproduction applies evolutionary pressure. This article looks like a good example of vigorous debate and I hope the editors with knowledge of the subject and varying viewpoints continue to improve it with citations to reliable sources and with scrutiny of bias or inadequacy in sources. I don't see good coverage of population statistics: in a tests and measurements course the point was made that most very high IQ offspring (say the top 2%) do not come from the very high IQ parents (again say the top 2%), who are too few in number to equal the high IQ offspring of the people in the lower 98%. Yes, the high IQ parents have children of higher than average IQ, but of lower IQ (on average) than the parents. Regression toward the mean. Edison 22:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be a questionable addition for this article because it's not a fact that supports either side of the argument. The main issue is the low number of studies in this field, and the even lower number that use the term dysgenic. Another issue is that there don't seem to be any studies that disprove dysgenic theories, resulting in editors finding other ways to express their pov. --Zero g 22:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it might be a worthwhile addition, if we don't set out with the goal to prove that dysgenics exists in this article (which I think wouldn't be NPOV). If we set out to describe it (in humans) as a matter of controversy, we just have to describe the controversy, not try to prove one side or another right. Just my twopence'.--Ramdrake 23:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think you need to clarify the distinction between Eugenics/ devolution and Dysgenics. Because I feel that the dysgenics is getting roped into the eugenics/ devo camp. This article fails to treat dysgenics as a separate topic. I think you could do a lot to help remove the controversial side of this article if you remove the portions dealing with "criteria for selection," or rather the judgement of what are ideal traits in the human population. These questions definately fall within the Eugenics topic, and create the ambiguities in the article. The article starts well with the "Malthusian Catastrophe," section; however this shouldn't strictly be thought of as a question of "carrying capacity."

I think that what Dygenics is all about is the, ethical (non-racist, non genetics based) limitation of our population to ensure our economic and environmental well being in a world of finite resources. If we used this as a starting point we could do alot to eliminate the controversy surrounding eugenics, and create a more credible/ legitamate theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.9.32.109 (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

This theory is not "nonsense" just because it has not been widley recognized or acknowledged by scientists. That simply makes it unknown and\or obscure. It is foolish to call the theory nonsense anyway, considering it can easily be observed anywhere in america today...Busboy 01:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical usage?

I believe this was a very common belief in the early part of the century. Much like Global Warming is a common belief now. In fact, Michael Crichton cites the erroneous belief in his book State of Fear basically to show that popular belief science like Global Warming is often devoid of sound scientific reasoning and repeats the hysteria of the time. It is amazing the people who believed it. I have never heard this term but it sounds like proponents of Eugenics would need to believe in 'dysgenics'. Is this part of the Theory of Eugenics/ See this. The theory is psuedo-science at best.--Tbeatty 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you have me confused...are you comparing the Dysgenics arguments of the 1930's to the current one today about global warming? I mean, that global warming is some kind of fallacy as well?--MONGO 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, global warming is a total pseudo-science, we ought to remove the term from every scientific Wikipedia page sometime. Once the Northpole has melted we could always consider some minor changes to our pov.

Dysgenics was never disproven though, instead there was some massive hysteria following WWII that made these concepts highly controversial and led to the global adoption of humanistic thought, from which viewpoint dysgenics is irrelevant, though the easily misguided masses must at all cost be protected from these evil believes. --Zero g 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a fallacy...Global warming has been embraced as fact by the vast majority of the world's experts on climate change and related research, whereby dysgenics has never had a vast following and outside the misuse of this term to ascribe it to some race=IQ mythology, it is not used as a descriptive in the teachings of human evolution...all the persons doing so now have contributed to what are known racist journals and have been involved in speculative research on the issue.--MONGO 11:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics had a very large following. It is indeed today the venue of racists. But in the 20s and 30s when racism was more common place, eugenics was thought of as a savior to mankind. Read this to see the people who bought into this idea. Global cooling and the next ice age was as recent as 30 years ago. Only time will tell if the predictions about global warming are real regardless of who has embraced it. My comparison wasn't that Global Warming is false, just that contemporary science intermixed with social and political pressure is a bad deal. One of the scary things about the Nazi eugenics program was that they found no overt political pressure in the science and policies of eugenics: meaning that the vast majority of the scientists involved believed in what they were doing from very broad social and political ideas. This is the ultimate definition of psuedo science. My comparison to Global Warming is the similiar types of pressure are being applied. Crichton makes this argument (comparing the political climate of eugenics pre-WWII with the political climate surrounding global warming) in his book and the similiarities are strking. Tbeatty 05:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured, actually. Crichton's anaology is a bit off still though. In the case of dysgenics, there never was anything based on science to truly use it as a word to describe the alterations at a genetic level, especially in human beings. But we have ice core samples and other data that extnd back hundreds of thousands of years, and by all evidence, the CO² levels today are as high as they were during the Jurrassic period. This carbon dioxide level has been increasing at a still not yet fully understood level due to fossil fuel use. IT may be anywhere from 1 to 30 percent. No doubt, humans are not the only reason the earth has been warming now for over 150 years, however, there are few if any scientists that can argue with the observable data, whereby, there was only bigotry to base dysgenics on. I don't disagree with Crichton completely, but think he could have come up with a better analogy than a comparison between global warming and dysgenics.--MONGO 05:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to devolve (dysgenic?) this into a GW debate, but Crichton's response would be that CO2 is 0.038% or 380 parts per million of the atmospheric gases and no one knows how variations in a tiny component would affect it. The big unknown for GW is water vapor. Water vapor makes up to 1% to 4% of the atmosphere (or 100 times more water than CO2 after the industrial revolution) As the atmosphere warms, it can hold more water increasing greenhouse effect, but as the water content increases so does cloud cover. Cloud cover reflects energy back into space and the Crichton's question (which is unanswered but very well sourced) is what the result of these competing events are. --Tbeatty 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should be rolled into Eugenics and written as a controversy. It is not a valid scientific theory and shouldn't be treated as such. --Tbeatty 05:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof that the term "dysgenic" is used

The following discussion was copied from Talk:Human_extinction--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User Mongo requested that I bring proof that the term "dysgenic" is used. Here it is, with the Google Scholar hits to prove it: 2,590 hits for "dysgenic" and 152 hits for "dysgenics". There you go.--Ramdrake 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's being misused...it is not used as terminology by evolutionary biologists as an extinction of humans rationale...only as one involving other other biological entities. In Human evolution, this term is not widely used at all.--MONGO 20:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's only misused in the sense that in humans it is still purely hypothetical and not proven. But the idea itself has been entertained, unfortunately often by racists, but also fairly often by non-racists. The difference is that non-racists usually term it as something purely hypothetical in humans whereas racists (or racialists) usually take it as a given that it exists in humans. I think so far we can agree on this much. My point is that this isn't grounds to remove it from every single article of WP which mentions it. It *is* worhtwhile to point out every time that it is a purely hypothetical concept wherever humans are concerned, though.--Ramdrake 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not purely hypothetical because there have been studies that showed correlations. I'm not sure where you get the information from that it are mainly racists who entertain the idea. What I've observed is that bio-egalitarians heavily oppose the concept, and I assume those are quite rare in the racist get-to-gethers on the internet. Also, a lot of studies exploring this area of research do not use the term dysgenics. I fear that any inclusion of research that falls in the dysgenics category but doesn't explicitly use the word will become the subject of pov warring once included. --Zero g 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To my understanding, some of the biggest users of the words were researchers like Lynn, Shockley, Burt and possibly Rushton. All of these names are associated with views that are considered racists by many people. I'm not aware that there exists proof positive of a dysgenic effect in humans so far. If you know of one, I'd be interested to take a look at it.--Ramdrake 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent women have lower fertility rates throughout the western world. As far as I know this is a commonly accepted fact among researchers. Suggestions for why this is happening have been that intelligent women are more effective at using birth control, delay motherhood because they want to finish their education first, and place the importance of a carreer above starting a family. Combine this with the scientific consensus that intelligence is partially genetic and you have a dysgenic trend.

I think what highlights Lynn and Co is that they are bold enough to use the term dysgenics, make a value judgement about the importance of intelligence, and stand out in English literature opposed to French, Dutch, German, Italian, etc, researchers drawing the same conclusion in regard to the correlation between IQ and fertility. --Zero g 00:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent women have lower fertility rates - have you seen the latest research into what "intelligence" means and the issues around traditional quantification techniques? It's a whole field unto itself, that intelligence could even be "measured" in an objective way is controversial. For example I saw one test where they told a group of black men they were to play a game of miniature golf to "measure their intelligence" - they scored (golf game score) poorly against a control group. Then they did the same test with another group of black men except they told them they were going to "measure their athletic ability" - all other things being equal, they scored high. There are social stigma's and stereotypes that affect peoples ability to take a test. That is just one example there are many others. -- Stbalbach 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream expert opinion disagrees, given the overwhelming amount of correlations between IQ scores and intellectual and economic achievements. What's interesting however is that this study you mention seems to be carried out on adults instead of school kids. It's known that researchers desiring the right kind of results have a preference for children. --Zero g 16:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the most famous study of this type was first done with school children in the 1950's in which the kids with brown eyes were told they are poor students and blue eyed students are good students, from which the kids then believed and performed accordingly (interestingly the next day the tables were reversed and the kids also reversed on test scores). BTW how can you correlate intelligence with income if you can't even measure intelligence objectively. One common belief is that rich people are smart so stereotype kids who are born into wealthy family as being "smarter" than average ("brighter".. etc..) they will behave accordingly, just as the blue eyed children did. -- Stbalbach 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many tags!

I removed the "unencyclopedic" tag since two tags are ugly enough, and three make it very unattractive, especialy considering the table of contents being there. The "not compliant with Wikipedia's policies" seems to cover that. If nothing else, maybe the "noncompliant" box should be substituted and have unencyclopedic included, so as to make it more readable. If not, at least the table of contents should go for the time being. Miltopia 06:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

prettyness isn't the objective of the tags. Editors have expressed valid complaints and they are being discussed and will be removed when consensus is reached. Tags create lists that are montitored by a number of editors. By removing the unencyclopedic tag, these particular patrollers have no insight into the concerns. More tags should be used, not less. At the bottom of the article you will see the categories implicit in the tag use. By removing the tag, you take the article out of the category. Tbeatty 07:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

True, prettiness isn't the objective, but the objective of an encyclopedia is to be read, right? And they make it pretty difficult. Miltopia 07:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to opine here that the two tags is more than enough. If tracking lists are the issue, there is no reason tags can't be here in the talk pages, vice the main article. I usually add them using {{tlx}} right in the subsection header line, so the TOC has a nav link to follow to the discussion. That organizes the pertinent discussion on the matters under the auspecies of that tag to that and some sub-headings, one of which would be an annotation that the tag has now been cleared. None of these make us look good to the customer-readers— more like a bunch of clowns. Best regards // FrankB 00:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Article sources

I think it's about time to remove the unencyclopedic and uncompliant tags. I think it's been established that 1. The subject of the article is encyclopedic 2. The used sources are compliant. --Zero g 09:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback has objected to Shockley and Teasdale and Owen. I've objected to Brand. I'd like to see the external links and the references that are relevant and verifiable recast as footnotes and the rest removed. I don't think any of the references qualify as general references for the article. They should be footnotes. "External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum." I will work on this as I have time. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article on Chris Brand indicates he's controversial, but there are no indications that he's inadequate in the field. I don't think Wikipedia should exclude people who are considered racists, pedophiles, homosexuals, feminists, pot smokers, no matter how controversial this might be in some nations.

Teasdale and Owen are reputable as far as I can see. I thought the dispute was whether the mention of the Flynn effect was OR, which isn't the case. As long as it's still mentioned that some research shows that the Flynn effect has come to an end, which in turn is dealt with in the subsequent article, I don't particularly care.

The 4 external links could be taken care off by creating a stub for Lynn's book on dysgenics.

I'd also like to see the references that aren't used in the article stay where they are, since they could be used for future improvements, and due to past criticism that there aren't enough references to validate the existence of the article. --Zero g 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Brand reference is a URL to a personal web site. "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." Please see WP:V. According to the web link,[15] a personal web site not meeting the standards of WP:V, the book review was first published in the Internet magazine, PINC (Politically Incorrect).[16] It may be considered a reliable source if it can be established that it has a good reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight.[17] I am dubious. More to the point, the article is not about the book that Brand reviews.

I don't think Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations is notable. Praeger is not on the partial list of academic publishers (Category:University book publishers). Marian Van Court is a collaborator of Lynn's and not an independent reviewer. The Brand review is not verifiable. Dysgenics is out of print and unavailable from major libraries (see above).

Will Beback points out that Teasdale and Owen is not relevant to the article topic since it does not mention dysgenics and Shockley is not a credible source. I mostly agree with both points. However, it is my opinion that Shockley may be used as a source of content related to the controversy over dysgenics as applied to human populations. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1. It's notable in the dysgenics field.

2. I see no evidence that actually discredits Brand and Van Court. I also don't see the relevance of removing these sources, especially since the book hasn't been reprinted yet. I'll however try going through all 4 reviews at once sometime and see if some can be removed without damaging the available knowledge about the content of the book, which is my main concern.

3. Teasdale and Owen falls within the scope of the article. However, a general statement saying that researchers have indicated that the Flynn effect may have come to a halt is acceptable if the source is removed. --Zero g 12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Move article to a new section within the article Eugenics?

I think this would be a great idea...any takers?--MONGO 17:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea, several articles link to dysgenics. Another issue is that dysgenics and eugenics aren't the same thing and there are sufficient sources to warrant its own article. --Zero g 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Support; I think it's probably a good idea. I notice that Neel in the Human Heredity article defines dysgenics as the opposite of eugenics. [18] Neel defines the third possibility, "isogenics", as changes that leave "the quality of that gene pool unchanged". Isogenics does not have its own article, so I'm not sure why dysgenics should. More people edit Eugenics than Dysgenics; the quality of article content on Wikipedia improves with the number of editors. On the other hand, Eugenics is 68 kB, longer than recommended by WP:SIZE, and incorporating Dysgenics and Isogenics would make it longer. But, it might make sense to create a new article "History of eugenics" before too long. That would move some of the less controversial content out of the main article and shorten it. That has already been done for Evolution.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Isogenics has only 12K google hits of which most are related to some weight loss program. Also using your reasoning, your recent attempts to strip Wikipedia bare from the mention of dysgenics would in theory have resulted in less editors finding this article, which subsequently would have damaged the future quality of this article.

Also compared with the countless articles on Wikipedia with a much lesser significance I don't quite understand your reasoning.

Finally, why do you consider splitting up the eugenics article, yet find it logical to merge in the case of dysgenics? That doesn't make sense at all. --Zero g 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If we were to merge this article into Eugenics, then we could make it a redirect page, so anyone who might search dysgenics would still see all the same info for the most part, but in the Eugenics article instead.--MONGO 10:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. I tend to be rather sympathetic to the idea of merge-and-redirect of this article into eugenics; clearly, the term "dysgenics" has the limited use it does almost exclusively among eugenicists, and in direct reference to the better known term. LotLE×talk 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (aside from the apparent effort to be inflamatory with a strange analogy about white people/racism, I haven't seen any arguments against merger)

You ought to provide a source when making statements of that order. In my opinion statements like that are as biased as saying that only white people can be racist. Also, the argument for a merger should be discussed on the eugenics talk page instead, besides that many of my arguments against a merger remained unanswered. --Zero g 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. I've added the appropriate tags to the articles and have placed a copy of the discussion above at Talk:Eugenics#Move_Dysgenics_to_a_new_section_within_the_article_Eugenics.3F --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied following comments to Talk:Eugenics#Merge_Dysgenics_into_Eugenics. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Support, dysgenics is eugenics under an alternative name. No reason to have two separate articles. Tim Vickers 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: the eugenics article is already too long.Rsheridan6 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also oppose - they're not the same thing and the eugenics article, which I read some months ago, is definitely too long to sustain such a merge. Richard001 05:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Agreed. The Eugenics article is too long.MoritzB 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Eugenics is a (social) philosophy. In biology/genetics, Dysgenics is a... let`s call it "an action and its result". They belong to two compltetely different fields. The fact that Eugenics operates with terms like "dysgenics" is irrelevant. Compare Thermodynamics and Entropy or Emergentism and emergence, etc. Raborg 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add new comments at Talk:Eugenics#Merge_Dysgenics_into_Eugenics. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The UNICEF-Report: Child Poverty in Rich Countries 2005 and dysgenics

According to this report [19] , the proportion of children living in poverty has risen in an majority of the the world’s developed economies. The poverty threshold is defined as the percentage of children living in households with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median income (and such a definition is a similar one as the IQ). The percentage of children living in poverty could be high, because many children are born to the poor ore because the well-to-do have relatively less children. In Germany and Austria, for example, more than 40% of women with an academic degree remain childless. We read in the report (p. 6): “The Report series has regularly shown, there is a close correlation between growing up in poverty and the likelihood of educational under-achievement, poor health, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, criminal and antisocial behaviour, low pay, unemployment, and long term welfare dependence. … Such problems are associated with, but not necessarily caused by, low income (for example, low levels of parental education or parental skills).” There could be an underlying common cause for both low IQ and poverty.

Finland with a mean IQ of 107 of PISA-transformed scores has only 2.8% of children living in poverty (data mostly from 2001). There are some countries where the IQ-values of the book “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” are lower than the PISA 2003-data, some are higher [20]. The PISA-2003 subjects are born in 1988/89, the subjects of Lynn and Vanhanen were the parents or grandparents of these. A high percentage of children in poverty could be a strong hint to a dysgenic trend in this country, a small percentage a hint to an eugenic trend. Indeed, the first 11 countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, Hungary, Luxemburg, Netherlands) in the “Child Poverty League”, Figure 1, p. 4 of the report) have a medium IQ gain (the difference between the Lynn-Vanhanen-data and the PISA 2003 data transformed into IQ) of 3 points (for example, Denmark 2.4% children in poverty, plus 4 IQ points; Finland, 2.8% children in poverty, plus 10 points). Because PISA-IQ seems generally to be 3 points higher than Lynn-Vanhanen-UK-Greenwich-IQ, there is no eugenic trend, but a standstill. But Germany (corrected IQ loss 5 points), Italy (children poverty 16.6%, minus 7 IQ points; it may be even 10 IQ points, if corrected) and Mexico (children poverty 27.7%, minus 4 IQ points) exhibit a clearly dysgenic trend. If we correlate the poverty percentages with the percentage of children who got a PISA-IQ of 88 and lower, the results are even far more clear-cut. The 15 countries who have a percentage of low IQ children below average (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Japan, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand) have a mean IQ gain of 4 points (corrected 1 point, which is no significant difference at all), the countries with an above average percentage of dull children (Hungary, Luxemburg, Germany, Greece, Poland, Spain, Italy, USA, Mexico) have a mean IQ loss of 2 points (corrected 5 points). In this way, comparing three bodies of data, Lynn-Vanhanen-IQ, PISA-IQ and children poverty percentages, we have for the first time evidence for eugenic and dysgenic trends on a national scale, reaching up to 7 points within one generation. There is additional evidence that a dysgenic trend is arising in Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland since 1990, and accelerating in Germany.

In Latin American countries as Brazil within the last generation the mean IQ has dropped from 87 to 78, in Peru from 90 to 76, in Uruguay from 96 to 87, in Chile from 93 to 83, and in Indonesia from 89 to 79. Data from other countries are lacking, but the trend seems to be clear. No wonder, for example, already since about 1970 in Brazil women of the social upper stratum have less than 2,1 children, women of the lower half of the income distribution about 7 children. Changes in the frequency of genes underlying IQ, creativity and so on, could and should be the consequence of such a demography.

Looking at the UNICEF report, I failed to see the word "Dysegenics" used even once. Naturally, higher educated people tend to have fewer children and poverty fosters a home situation in which not only is money a serious issue, but the children are raised in environments where educational attainment is lower and the quality of the education may be substandard. Therefore, the overall increase in lower IQ's is not genetic, but due to higher birthrates amoung the less educated, who in turn, foster less emaphasis on educational achievement in their children. Since the number of poverty children is increasing, that drives the overall national IQ's lower. That is not a genetic thing...it is a learned (or due to the lack of learning) situation.--MONGO 13:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your are quite right if genes did not exist at all or could play no role. --Julia Neumann 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments appear to be original research and hence are not suitable for inclusion in the article. However, content from reliable sources, especially Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) listed journal articles, is welcome. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton review

The Hamilton review appears in Annals of Human Genetics, ISSN 0003-4800. This journal is not an Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) listed journal and does not satisfy WP:RS, in my opinion. I think it should be removed from the article. Also, a book review isn't a suitable source for a scientific article. Scientific articles should be based on research published in scientific journals that are listed by the ISI and books publlished by reputable scientific publishing companies. The ISI Master Journal List includes 14,067 journals, so this is not an unduly restrictive criterion. As I've argued above, a number of the sources used for the article are equally dubious. However, Lynn and Van Court (2004) is published in an ISI listed journal, Intelligence. To me, this demonstrates that adequate sources exist. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet the journal is actually listed by ISI... MoritzB 00:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This talk page

Is a stunning example of what's wrong with discussion about intelligence trends in humanity, both as a whole and in subpopulations. Most of the sources discussing it are funded by special interest groups looking for any scientific data that might back up their racist/aristocratic views, helping them overturn affirmative action and lending credence to their bigotry. Liberals, on the other hand, including the majority of scientists, won't touch it with a ten foot stick because 1) they have firmly held egalitarian beliefs they don't want shaken, and/or don't want to offend anyone and 2) are afraid of public policy changes that could stem from scientific affirmation of these issues; they'd rather shout down the topics as being fundamentally without merit rather than investigate them. So the only people even willing to bring up the issues are often racist and self-serving, but the other side won't even acknowledge the relevance of the issues or frankly discuss them, since they are meek and equally self-serving. In short, I think the article should stay, since it is a legitimate and important course of research, but if there are no meaningful or firmly supported conclusions to date then the article should include more in the way of counterarguments and note that the topic is still in its infancy and not well understood. - Chauncey

I don't believe that the existence or nonexistence of a dysgenic trend is relevant to the wisdom of retaining or overturning affirmative action laws. It is, however, directly relevant to the Western world's appraisal of eugenics; if dysgenics is actually occuring, then eugenics, which has as its primary aim the reversal of the current dysgenic trend, can hardly be dismissed. This is why it should be unsurprising that many researchers into the field of dysgenics do have political leanings, but that these are actually more pro-eugenic than they are anti-affirmatice action; and while it may be easy to insist that researchers are seeing only what they want to see, it is just as plausible that the facts of the case made converts of them. The tools of scientific inquiry are available to all, and it is quite telling that those who might oppose the idea of dysgenics have still failed to disprove its existence. Harkenbane 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of view

Everyone is so quick to label dysgenics as a "psuedoscience" that they wont look at the actual underlying validity to this fascinating concept. To determine its validity is not hard, people.Its qutie simple actually. Just use simple logic, for example: it dysgenics didn't exist, or had no real validity, it would not be practiced at all in any way, period. The vey fact that people practice culling on various domesticated animals, such as dogs shows that it does exist in some way.Busboy 01:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dysgenics is becoming more widely accepted due to continued scientific scrutiny.Gold Nitrate 18:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more recent source than Weyl, N. & Possony, S. T: The Geography of Intellect, 1963, s. 154 could be found to indicate significant scientific interest in this topic, but I'm a little dubious There was a flurry of interest around 1994 due to the publication of "The Bell Curve", but very little was published in the serious literature. This article contains a some material from The Bell Curve and related sources as well as other material based on sources that do not satisfy WP:RS (such as book reviews published only on the web). Until these problems are cleaned up, I think it is important to warn readers that the article content is disputed by means of the totallydisputed tag or a similar one. I have tried to improve the article, [21] and would encourage others to contribute, also. However, I think it is important to follow WP:V and, if the article is intended to be about a scientific topic, as opposed to a literary device or pseudoscience, I think that means the content should be primarily based on sources from Institute for Scientific Information listed scientific journals. If good sources cannot be found among the 14,000 journals listed by the ISI, I don't think we can argue that the article topic is of significant scientific interest. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently, content was added citing Weyl and Possony. Nathaniel Weyl was an American economist and Stefan Thomas Possony was an American military theorist.[22] I don't think their book, "The Geography of Intellect", is a reliable source for an article on a scientific topic. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely a reliable source as it is a book published by a respected publishing house.

MoritzB 14:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing in Washington, D.C. self-identifies as a publisher which specializes in conservative books characterized on their website as "contrary to those of 'mainstream' publishers in New York."[23] It is not a respected publisher of scientific work such as Wiley InterScience. I think scientific articles should be based on Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) listed journal papers and review articles whenever possible. Unfortunately, this article is mostly based on authors with an extreme point of view, yet the article does not clearly indicate that is the case. Consequently, I've added the npov tag.

The record shows that Auno3 (talk · contribs · count) and MoritzB (talk · contribs · count) seem to be WP:SPAs pushing an extreme point of view. Also, MoritzB has been blocked for "Edit warring on White people, numerous other pages".[24] Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I point out that also such famous books like Unfit for Command about John Kerry's military service have been published by Regnery. That book about history and Weyl's book about eugenics satisfy WP:RS. Regnery is a respected published house although it is associated with the political views of "right-wing Republicans".

MoritzB 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

Removed the 'Gattaca' entry from the fiction portion. Dysgenics (if it exists) is unintentional in nature - none of the affects portrayed in 'Gattaca' were accidental.

Criticism about Lynn

The article says that "Lynn's work on dysgenics has been criticized in the mainstream scientific press." However, Leon Kamin in the reference provided actually criticises Lynn for citing certain studies about the average IQ of Africans.

"The remaining studies cited by Lynn, and accepted as valid by Herrnstein and Murray, tell us little about African intelligence but do tell us something about Lynn's scholarship. One of the 11 entries in Lynn's table of the intelligence of "pure Negroids" indicates that 1,011 Zambians who were given the Progressive Matrices had a lamentably low average IQ of 75. The source for this quantitative claim is given as "Pons 1974; Crawford-Nutt 1976." A. L. Pons did test 1,011 Zambian copper miners, whose average number of correct responses was 34. Pons reported on this work orally; his data were summarized in tabular form in a paper by D. H. Crawford-Nutt. Lynn took the Pons data from Crawford-Nutt's paper and converted the number of correct responses into a bogus average "IQ" of 75. Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils. Seven of the 11 studies selected by Lynn for inclusion in his "Negroid" table reported only average Matrices scores, not IQs; the other studies used tests clearly dependent on cultural content. Lynn had earlier, in a 1978 paper, summarized six studies of African pupils, most using the Matrices. The arbitrary IQs concocted by Lynn for those studies ranged between 75 and 88, with a median of 84. Five of those six studies were omitted from Lynn's 1991 summary, by which time African IQ had, in his judgment, plummeted to 69. Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund. It is a matter of shame and disgrace that two eminent social scientists, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys of research."

Kamin doesn't even mention dysgenics in the article. MoritzB 01:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB is right. Editors should read the article before claiming it's about dysgenics. If you want to quote an article critical of his work on dysgenics, then find one and quote it, but this just isn't it, (though anything that reduces Lynn's credibility is relevant). Better yet, maybe criticisms should be put in Richard_Lynn#Controversy, and this article could link to it.Lysine23 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. An article about dysgenics should be about dysgenics, not to isolate African IQ as inferior. The sources are truly outdated. Biomet 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Kamin didn't talk about dysgenics. He talked about the IQ of Africans which is offtopic. Thus, remove the entire sentence. MoritzB 01:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's avoid the whole issue by removing the reference and linking to Richard_Lynn#Controversy instead. Now you can criticize him for whatever you like in an article where it's not offtopic. A lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of Richard Lynn's research, which is what this would end up turning into, would be redundant and off-topic for Dysgenics anyway.Lysine23 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know what the NPOV tag is doing in this article anyway.MoritzB 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

W.D. Hamilton's review

Nobody in the field of evolutionary biology is more mainstream than W.D. Hamilton. He reviewed Lynn's book very positively: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showPdf?submitPDF=Full+Text+PDF+%28190+KB%29&doi=10.1046%2Fj.1469-1809.2000.6440363.x

I will add some points Hamilton made to the article.MoritzB 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No merge

I think this topic is distinct from eugenics and is, in fact, one of the reasons why eugenics must be persued. Gold Nitrate 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

About the latest revert war

Please MoritzB, stop claiming that you have talk page consensus for your changes. That "consensus" you speak of is an agreement between you and Lysine23 (talk · contribs) who is clearly a single-purpose POV-pushing account. Pascal.Tesson 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason MoritzB and I have a consensus of two is that nobody who thinks that the Kamin article is critical of Lynn's work on dysgenics has actually bothered to post anything about in on the talk page, despite invitations by both MoritzB and I to do so. They just revert the article. As for POV pushing, I'm not trying to whitewash Lynn. Find an article that's critical of his work on dysgenics, or just say that his work in general has been criticized, and I'll be happy, but don't misrepresent an article about Lynn's work on race and IQ as being about dysgenics. In my edit, I replaced the link to a critical article about Lynn with a link to a discussion of criticism of Lynn which included a link to that very article and others. I don't see how that's POV pushing.Lysine23 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder. Sockpuppet comes to mind. But, then again, I may just be paranoid. This place is getting on my nerves. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not MoritzB. Google our usernames and ask yourself whether a German-speaker like MoritzB would have a 600+ item del.icio.us page without a single German language link.Lysine23 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that some people are enthusiastic to revert my changes although they aren't interested of contributing to the discussion on talk page. I pointed out a factual mistake a week ago and in this case we simply had to correct that factual mistake. MoritzB 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moritz' point is perfectly valid. He doesn't dispute Lynn's take on "dysgenics" is controversial. He is saying the article linked has nothing to do with that. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think our readers need to know that Lynn has exhibited "scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity" according to a review in Scientific American, a mainstream scientific news source satisfying WP:RS. In my mind, that calls into question his entire body of work, not merely his work on African IQ. To claim otherwise strikes me as disingenuous and tendentious. I might add that to devote so much space to Schockley, Lynn and Weyl and Possony would seem to me to violate the undue weight section of WP:NPOV, since dysgenics in non-humans, its main use, is barely covered in the article. That, along with the lack of critical comment on Weyl and Possony, justify the NPOV tag, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but just say that instead of saying incorrectly that Kamin's article was about dysgenics. I liked my solution of linking to Richard_Lynn#Controversy, but apparently nobody else did.Lysine23 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agreed but certain editors just started edit warring.MoritzB 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about Richard Lynn. Leon Kamin's position is fringe as he doesn't believe that there are genetic differences in intelligence. (Although according to the Encyclopedia Britannica article about intelligence and the American Psychological Association IQ is a substantially heritable trait).

Lynn's work has also been positively reviewed in the mainstream scientific press. (See W.D. Hamilton's review, Daniel Vining's review and John C. Loehlin's review)

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162(199901)561%3C216%3ADGDIMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-4728(199803)52%3A1%3C120%3ADGDIMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

MoritzB 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that Lynn was cited in Hamilton's books? Of course they will have positive things to say about him. I am gathering other "mainstream scientific opinions" that are critical of him. To have Lynn dominate this article, when he is controversial, just like the authors of the Bell Curve is not NPOV! His views and findings are controversial and it is important to represent the other side for balance. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know who W. D. Hamilton is?MoritzB 01:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton credibility as a source will not be questioned by anybody with the slightest passing familiarity with evolutionary biology, but I read that review and didn't see it as particularly favorable. He praised Lynn for being thick-skinned in the face of spittle-spewing PC enforcers, and he dealt with Lynn as a scientist instead of a heretic, but that was as positive as it got, as far as I can recall.Lysine23 12:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton basically accepts Lynn's views:

"Richard Lynn, discussing the large bank of evidence that still steadily accumulates on heritability of aptitudes and differentials of fertility, shows in this book that almost all of the worries of the early eugenicists were wellfounded in spite of the relative paucity of their evidence at the time. Correct both in their intuitions and in their assessment of the tentative data available, for most of the past hundred years Lynn shows that they have been unfairly derided. The concerns they had about declines in health, intelligence and conscientiousness are matters that we should still be much concerned with"

Then he goes on to offer his explanation why the phenotypic IQ is constantly rising although the genotypic IQ is declining. MoritzB 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

About Lynn's book and Shockley

WSiegmund deleted this paragraph: "Lynn suggests in Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, that the isolated effect of dysgenics may have been masked by the countervailing Flynn effect, the steady increase of IQ in Asian and Western nations during the 20th century, thought to be related to better diets and other environmental factors. Current research shows that the Flynn effect might have already ended around 1990 in several European nations. Teasdale & Owen (2005) "report intelligence test results from over 500,000 young Danish men, tested between 1959 and 2004, showing that performance peaked in the late 1990s, and has since declined moderately to pre-1991 levels." They speculate that "a contributing factor in this recent fall could be a simultaneous decline in proportions of students entering 3-year advanced-level school programs for 16–18 year olds."

This information is definitely relevant. Lynn's books satisfies WP:RS. Reviews of the book have appeared in mainstream, peer-reviewed, ISI-listed journals. (See W.D. Hamilton's review in the Annals of Human Genetics, for example) Hamilton's review is accessible to all editors.

Also, WSiegmund added that Shockley was "ridiculed" and "vilified". Those verbs are derogatory and should be avoided on Wikipedia. (WP:WTA) Shockley was "ridiculed" in newspapers mainly because he opposed racial equality, not because of his ideas about dysgenics. Thus, his reputation is irrelevant in this article. ~

See also Daniel Vining's review and John C. Loehlin's reviews:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162(199901)561%3C216%3ADGDIMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-4728(199803)52%3A1%3C120%3ADGDIMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 MoritzB 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The current article gives no indication that average IQ has not, in fact, been decreasing for the past century or two (possibly excepting the last 10 years or so - the jury's still out AFAIK). This is certainly relevant to the article. There should be section mentioning what has actually happened and dealing with hypotheses why the demographic-economic paradox has not (yet?) led to lower IQ.Lysine23 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've argued above (03:46, 8 November 2006) that Lynn's book does not satisfy WP:RS since it is not available in many major research or public libraries. Will Beback (05:37, 8 November 2006) says that Teasdale & Owen "may be relevant to the Flynn Effect, I don't see its relevance here". I agree. "Ridiculed" and "vilified" are the words used in the PBS biography of Shockley. "He was vilified, ridiculed, humiliated, and eventually forgotten. His reputation in tatters, he retreated to his home on the Stanford campus..."[25] Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot understand your argument because reviews of Lynn's book definitely satisfy WP:RS. They have been published in peer-reviewed, ISI-listed scientific journals. Are you saying that although the reviews are reliable sources the book is not. Those reviews can be used as a source for the same information.

And as I explained Shockley had controversial views about race and intelligence, not about dysgenics. MoritzB 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What's our source for Shockley's views on dygenics being non-controversial? I don't see any prior discussion about it on this page, and the assertion seems unwarranted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Shockley's view that intelligence declined because blacks had more children than whites was controversial. However, there is no mainstream opposition to the idea that there are heritable differences in intelligence and consequently dysgenics is possible. See W.D. Hamilton's paper: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showPdf?submitPDF=Full+Text+PDF+%28190+KB%29&doi=10.1046%2Fj.1469-1809.2000.6440363.x

MoritzB 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Where in Hamilton's book review does he address the distinction between Shockley's view of dysgenics and his opinions on the races? I agree with Will Beback. I'm dubious that a source for Shockley's views on dygenics being non-controversial can be found. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What specific aspects of Shockley's views do you mean? It is not controversial that there are genetic differences in IQ between individuals. It is more controversial whether there are such differences between races.MoritzB 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations by Richard Lynn does not satisfy WP:V, to wit, "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Since this book is not available from most libraries, even from major university libraries, it fails this criterion. I think Wikipedia policy requires that content based on this source be removed, unless an alternative source that is available to readers can be found. BTW, another source, the Mensa Bulletin fails WP:V, in my opinion, also. It is not available in most libraries. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the book is available in most university libraries. W.D. Hamilton's review is available to everybody and other reviews to all people with JSTOR access. MoritzB 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When I last checked, Columbia, Ohio State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Washington, and Dartmouth College did not list Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations by Richard Lynn in their library catalogs. It is out of print. A used copy is available via Amazon for $549.95, i.e., beyond the means of most volunteer editors on Wikipedia. I don't think it satisfies WP:V. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

With interlibrary loans, it would be surprising if people with access to those libraries couldn't get the book. The University of Kansas has it and they have interlibrary loan agreements with lots of libraries, for example [26]. If you asked a librarian at any of the schools you mention, they would probably be able to get it. Should we waste their time getting them to prove it?Lysine23 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? WP:V does not state that most volunteer editors should have access to the book. MoritzB 06:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V says that content should be verifiable; if the source is not available in libraries or at reasonable cost, editors and readers cannot verify the content based on that source. If the book was the subject of the article, or if no other sources were available, you might have an argument for retaining it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the book is actually available at least in the British Library we should retain it.

http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/?func=full-set-set&set_number=103907&set_entry=000001&format=999

MoritzB 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviews of Lynn's book

Vining says, "Personally, I do not think this dysgenic trend can explain much; most adverse movements occur much too rapidly or at least occur within generations and cannot be explained by dysgenic trends." Hamilton argues that "perinatal and surgical gynaecological skill is permitting the birth of larger-headed babies than formerly" and "Lynn's calculations neglect them". Also, "[n]one of his calculations take [extra-pair paternity] into account and yet most estimates of western populations set the rate quite high, at about 10 %". I think it is inaccurate to suggest that these authors reviewed Lynn's book favorably.

The Loehlin review is favorable, but was written by an author of Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns which supported "The Bell Curve" and its conclusions. I think that if it is to be used in the article, the author's bias should be mentioned. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't quote selectively. Vining says that: "What might dysgenics mean? If we allow for the

hereditary transmission of traits like intelligence and even conscientiousness (and the research facts point in this direction, as Lynn shows), then the facts related above suggest a generational deterioration in such traits, a genetic deterioration in short, a dysgenic trend. How significant a deterioration? The significance of this dysgenic trend for the modern civilizations of Europe, East Asia, North America, indeed the whole globe, is to be explored in a second volume, as yet unpublished."

...

Personally, I do not think this dysgenic trend can explain much; most adverse movements occur much too rapidly or at least occur within generations and cannot be explained by dysgenic trends. The 'fast growing menaces presented by our cultural imbalances', as Hermann Muller called them (see Muller 1973, p. 128), do not seem to be due to anything as simple as dysgenic fertility. Rather, I would argue, dysgenic fertility is just one of those cultural imbalances.

and concludes: "Lynn's book has been reviewed elsewhere (e.g., Jackson, 1997; Lamb, 1997; Jones, 1997). The first two are laudatory. The last objects to the history of the eugenics movement given in the book, though, as the reviewer himself notes, the history is mercifully short."

By the way, Hermann Muller was a "hardcore" eugenicist who advocated very harsh, interventionist eugenics programs to Stalin when he worked in the USSR. See: http://www.mankindquarterly.org/muellersletter.pdf

Hamilton's review is positive: "Richard Lynn, discussing the large bank of evidence that still steadily accumulates on heritability of aptitudes and differentials of fertility, shows in this book that almost all of the worries of the early eugenicists were wellfounded in spite of the relative paucity of their evidence at the time. Correct both in their intuitions and in their assessment of the tentative data available, for most of the past hundred years Lynn shows that they have been unfairly derided. The concerns they had about declines in health, intelligence and conscientiousness are matters that we should still be much concerned with..."

You quoted Hamilton saying that "perinatal and surgical gynaecological skill is permitting the birth of larger-headed babies than formerly" and "Lynn's calculations neglect them". This is one of Hamilton's alternative explanations to the Flynn effect which is masking the dysgenic trend. If Hamilton's explanation is true the case for dysgenics is stronger.MoritzB 01:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about Richard Lynn.

Lynn only co-authored one of two studies mentioned, and the study he and Van Court published merely verified the earlier results obtained by Vining. It may be useful to mention that Lynn is a controversial figure who has been criticized by scientists, but no more is necessary. Harkenbane 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Can anyone offer a study result which disconfirms the two studies quoted? I recall having read others which gave rates for the decline between those two results, but I have never seen any study which ever reported that intelligence and fertility were positively correlated. Given that IQ is substantially genetic (as described in the article, "Inheritance of intelligence") all that is required to show that genotypic IQ is rising or falling is to demonstrate the existence of a positive or negative correlation between IQ and fertility.

Whether or not IQ is falling is central to the article. In the absence of evidence showing IQ and fertility to be positively correlated, there is no real "con" side to be represented. If you think the article as it is currently written presents a distorted view of reality, find a study showing that the correlation between IQ and fertility is non-negative! Harkenbane 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been over a month, and no one has been able to supply a study demonstrating that there isn't a negative correlation between IQ and fertility, so, I am removing the neutrality tag. Harkenbane (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In normal (i.e. non-modern) human societies there of course would be a positive correlation, otherwise intelligence like humans have could never have evolved. Indeed, such a correlation probably persists in societies where the going is still tough, such as modern hunter gatherers. After all, if there wasn't, intelligence would again tend to decline through accumulation of random mutations. It is only in societies where you don't need to be intelligent to get by in life that there is much likelihood of there being a negative correlation. Richard001 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Harkenbane (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring the impact of extra-pair paternity and other confounding factors. In any case, no scientific consensus exists for dysgenic effects in humans. To suggest otherwise is an extreme point of view. I've reverted your edits to the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Walter, you (and all other Wikipedians) had a month to come up with a study showing that the correlation between IQ and fertility is non-negative, and you still have nothing to offer. Bear in mind that the article isn't biased in favor of one side if there is no opposing side to be represented. If you think extra-pair paternity and other confounds are important, you can mention that in the article. Or, if you think there is a lack of scientific consensus, you can mention some scientists who think they have evidence against the existence of a stable dysgenic trend throughout modern nations - but I think you'll have trouble finding any heavy hitters. The most lauded figure to consider the question of dysgenic fertility that I am aware of is Jensen, and Jensen clearly weighs in with the dysgenists; on page 484 of his g factor, he reviews Vining's work and writes: "there has been an overall downward trend in the genotypic IQ of both the white and the black populations," describing the evidence for this as "solid." I know of no scientists of any repute who disagree with this analysis. If there are some, then mention them; if not, there is no opposing view to be represented. Harkenbane (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New findings on human evolution

Might want to add this to the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin --Calibas (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see its relevance; the article topic isn't mentioned in the citation. Human evolution might be a better fit, but that is an article well-sourced in the scientific literature. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because the article topic is or is not mentioned is not the sole criterion for inclusion; after reviewing the article, I can see that it deserves some mention - it says, essentially, that researchers find that the pace of human evolution is accelerating; dysgenesis is directly concerned with the rate and direction of human evolutionary change. I'd like to see what others think about the subject, however. Harkenbane (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I'm removing the section on lead poisoning, because such a toxin would have have had only environmental, rather than genetic, consequences. Harkenbane (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of the Gillfallen paper is "Roman Culture and Dysgenic Lead Poisoning". With dysgenic in the title, it is relevant to the history of the term as is the Needleman and Needleman refutation thereof. The section is well-sourced, as well. I've restored it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an irrelevant distraction, not only because their argument was refuted and therefore ends up being of little interest, but because it doesn't use the term in the sense covered here or used throughout the mainstream. I haven't noticed that kind of thing in other Wikipedia articles; perhaps you know of some well-constructed article which contains sections of that nature to provide some sort of precedent, here? Harkenbane (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is well-cited and relevant to the history section. It is commonly mentioned in the literature, especially the historical literature. Harkenbane (talk · contribs · count) is a tendentious WP:SPA pushing an extreme point of view, in my opinion. I'm restoring the Gillfallen content and adding the totally disputed tag. The article, as currently written, bares scant resemblance to mainstream scientific thought. It violates the undue weight section of WP:NPOV by dwelling on dysgenic effects in humans whereas the only significant scientific work on this topic applies to non-humans because of the difficulty of such work on a species with a long generation time and ethical problems. One of the few reputable scientific sources (Scientific American) says of one of the proponents of dysgenic effects in humans that “Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity.” Please see the article footnotes. I think this quotation should be moved into the article and not buried in the footnotes to make this article more balanced. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Lead isn't commonly mentioned in the scientific literature at all. If you really feel very strongly about it, fine, leave it in - I think it's a waste of space, but the article isn't long as it is.

2. The article bears plenty of resemblance to mainstream scientific thought. Look at the Scientific Investigation section, where you'll find studies by these quite ordinary scientists listed: Van Court, Bachu, Urdry, Cohen, Olson, Weller, Teasdale, Owen. There are plenty of other emminent psychologists who have reviewed the evidence and think the case for dysgenics is strong, such as Jensen (see especially _Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations With Arthur R. Jensen_), as well as Eysenk and Cattell; and while I realize that Richard Lynn is a controversial researcher, his book, dysgenics, was favorably reviewed by plenty of scholars, like Gerhard Meisenberg, William Hamilton, and Vining!

3. Mainly, it is those who are concerned with dysgenics in human populations that consider it worth studying or discussing. If you want to add content about dysgenics in nonhumans, please do so!

4. I think I've adequately addressed in point 2 that Lynn is not central to this issue. I agree that a quick mention of the controversy surrounding Lynn is helpful and interesting to some readers, but I really think you're the one giving undue weight to a peripheral issue, here. Haven't you noticed that Scientific American is a popular science magazine, or that Kamin, the author of that quote you think is so important, is widely known to be a Marxist?

5. Walter, rather than complaining about the article not being neutral, I suggest you improve it and add to it so that it doesn't seemed biased to you. Given that I've contributed numerous scientific studies and quotes by researchers, while it looks like you've provided some anti-Lynn links and a paragraph about lead, I hope you can understand why I think you're the one pushing an unscientific POV. I'd like to see you find and add quotes by researchers in the field who argue against the validity of the research that is provided. Harkenbane (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the recent growth of the article I support removing the lead poisoning section. Googling for the article brings up only 10 results, non of the links being of any significance. --Zero g (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Factuality / NPOV issues

I recently reviewed the scientific journals, doing searches for "dysgenic trend," checking the articles that came up, and finding the articles cited by these articles. While this literature search is unlikely to be exhaustive, I think it does show that there is scientific evidence for dysgenesis at present, with a lively discussion among the researchers who generally interpret the evidence as supporting dysgenesis. I have sourced the text in the "Scientific Findings" sections in a way that allows anyone who wonders about accuracy to demonstrate to themselves that the articles claims are indeed factual.

I have also reviewed Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which states:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Although I'm open to alternative interpretations regarding majority status, I think that the ease with which a small dysgenic trend can be substantiated by a review of scientific journals establishes the majority view. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone who can find prominent adherents of the minority view to improve the article by adding their arguments, but in the absence of any evidence to bolster the minority view, it does not belong in Wikipedia.

I urge future editors of this article who suspect it of being biased or nonfactual to demonstrate which claims are erroneous, or that there is a neglected point of view. Please think carefully before insisting without support that the article is biased or nonfactual.

Harkenbane (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Vening?

The sentence "In 1982, Vining sought to address these issues..." is the first time that this 'Vining' is introduced. Perhaps this can be expanded upon... 71.65.254.179 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

Also, on a second note, I'm a bit confused about what this article is implying. According to other studies average IQ is increasing, but this article seems to imply that the average is going down because fertility rates of people with lower IQ is higher. Perhaps this should be clarified, unless my reading comprehension just isn't up to par today... ;) 71.65.254.179 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

actually, some information from IQ#The_Dickens_and_Flynn_model might be used. 71.65.254.179 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's already in the article (see the last paragraph of "Scientific Investigation") but I can see that it might not feature prominently enough right now. If no one else wants to take a crack at it, I might expand the article in a few days. Harkenbane (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I removed the following content. The uncited assertion that "education is known to be a good proxy for IQ" is crucial to its relevance. I'm sure that good citations exist to the contrary. For it to be relevant to the article, it must be demonstrated that education is a good proxy for "beneficial" allele frequency, even more dubious. Even so, it is likely to be WP:OR, unless the citations mention the article topic.

In my opinion, this article is a WP:POVFORK of Eugenics, an attempt to evade WP:POV. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another way of checking the negative relationship between IQ and fertility is to consider the relationship which educational attainment has to fertility, since education is known to be a good proxy for IQ. One such study carried out in 1991 found that high school dropouts in America had the most children (2.5 on average), with high school graduates having fewer children, and college graduates having the fewest children (1.56 on average). Among a sample of women using a reliable form of birth control, success rates were related to IQ, with the percentages of high, medium and low IQ women having unwanted births during a three-year interval being 3%, 8% and 11%, respectively. Another study found that after an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, higher IQ couples are more likely to obtain abortions ; and unmarried teenage girls who become pregnant are found to be more likely to carry their babies to term if they are doing poorly in school. Conversely, while desired family size is apparently the same for women of all IQ levels, highly educated women are found to be more likely to say that they desire more children than they have, indicating a "deficit fertility" in the highly intelligent. In her review of reproductive trends in the United States, Van Court argues that "each factor - from initially employing some form of contraception, to successful implementation of the method, to termination of an accidental pregnancy when it occurs - involves selection against intelligence."

WS, is it so difficult to assume good faith in other posters? Yes, I agree that "education is known to be a good proxy for IQ" probably ought to be sourced; however, the relationship between educational attainment and IQ is so well known (see for instance the APA task force report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns which reports r>.5) that it is simply taken for granted throughout the literature which tries to get at dysgenesis indirectly. Education isn't the only proxy that has been used; consider also the research which used appearance in Who's Who as a proxy for intelligence.

More importantly, I don't agree with your claim that the text you deleted represents original research, which "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." The information provided is published in reliable journals, as should be evident because it is well sourced. That it is directly related to the topic of the article should be obvious, and it does directly support the information provided - in fact, it really does little more than corroborate what Vining already demonstrated using actual IQ scores. Whether or not the citations mention the article topic by name is irrelevant to the fact that they are relevant to the topic.

Thus, I hope you aren't surprised that I am reverting your edit, although I will provide a source to the APA article for the claim that educational IQ is a good proxy for IQ. (I do admit that your pointing out the need for a source there was helpful.) In closing, although I realize that you are trying to improve the article, I don't think your knowledge of the science behind the topic warrants such strong reactions. Harkenbane (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, I just noticed, after restoring the article, that it already gave a source - IQ#School_performance which says "Correlations between IQ scores and total years of education are about .55, implying that differences in psychometric intelligence account for about 30% of the outcome variance," taking this straight from the APA article I just mentioned. Was it so hard to check the link before assuming the claim was unsourced? Harkenbane (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

"So what?" section

There seems to be a void in this article where there ought to be some sort of conclusion. Specifically, it might be useful to discuss what it would mean if IQ were falling, citing discussions on the interpretation of IQ (e.g. does it really measure "intelligence," & if IQ rose 15 points from the Flynn Effect, will smaller effects from dysgenesis make any difference, etc). This might also be a good place to add a discussion on Lynn's Dysgenics; I haven't read it, so other users will be in a much better position to comment, here. Harkenbane (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OC

Has there being any discussion on adding opportunity cost of time to explain the fertility differential between highly educated and low educated people? Brusegadi (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I considered it, but I haven't had much feedback on this article, so I've tried to stay very closely to the facts. Because I know of no public figure who made this (rather obvious) claim, I didn't feel comfortable adding it, myself. If you think it needs to go in, feel free to add it! Harkenbane (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

External Link - Future Generations?

I see we have a minor revert skirmish! Rather than joining the fray, I'd like to ask if Ramdrake and Zero G would like to provide more thorough explanations for whether or not Future Generations should be listed among the external links. I will add that, as Marian Van Court is mentioned in the article, her website is likely to be of some interest to readers, and that, based on perusal of the website, Future Generations doesn't seem to fit the list of links to be avoided. I personally find external references very useful when I read through an article, and I think it would be better to add more links, if they can be found. Harkenbane (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very simply, the website qualifies as either a personal website, or a self-published work, and is in the list of types of links to be avoided as external links. You will see that the article on Marian Van Court itself may not meet notability guidelines, as well.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of external links is to provide some links to websites with content relating to the article. Neither of the pages Ramdrake removed was a 'personal website', and self-published work isn't on the list of sites to exclude from external links.

Keep in mind that links on Wikipedia aren't used by Google, in case you have some strange ulterior motive for removing the links. --Zero g (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As per [[WP:EL]: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:...

11-Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Now please prove to me that the Personal eugenics site of Marian Van Court isn't a personal website. The second one, dygenics or eugenics, fall under the same criterion, except maybe that it looks even more like a personal webpage.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, I have a few things to note. Firstly, Zero g, I encourage you to assume good faith on the part of other wikipedians; this discussion page is cluttered with arguments which really didn't move the article forward. Secondly, Ramdrake, I did see that Van Court's Wikipedia entry doesn't meet inclusion guidelines, as you'll notice if you check the discussion page under Marian Van Court. I let Siegmund's edits adding information on Lynn & Van Court stay in the article on dysgenics in the interests of diplomacy, not because I thought they were really relevant, but, it stands to reason that if readers really do care enough about Van Court that they want to know she published in white nationalist magazines, they probably care enough to read other work she's written to decide whether she's credible. In any event, while Van Court's website is her own, if you check you'll see that some of the material there was published in academic journals, and I think she probably is an established authority on dysgenesis because of that.

So, why don't we simply restore the url until we can find better external links to include? Harkenbane (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply because that would be against WP policy on external links, unless there is a consensus of the editors here to ignore all rules. Or, we could put Van Court's site back in waiting for better links, but I would very strongly oppose the inclusion of the other link, which reads like an online personal journal. At least Van Court's site carries copies of some peer-reviewed material.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be against WP policy on external links, because, once again, Marian van Court has published in academic journals on the subject, which identifies her as a recognized authority. But I'll tell you what: I'm going to see about finding some more links, and if any of them seem appreciably better than Future Generations, we can leave that one out. Harkenbane (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with linking to Van Court's web site. I find no indication of peer review or an editorial board for the Van Court web site. Since she has written for "a magazine that espouses white nationalism" (according to a reliable source), her objectivity is impugned. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd be correct, however, the point of most discussions isn't as much to move the article forward, but to move it backward. --Zero g (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I did four google searches on dysgenics/dysgenesis paired with IQ/intelligence, and all I found were pages in Van Court's site, online discussions, a few journal articles which mentioned the topic only in passing, and reviews of Lynn's work. It would be nice if there were more serious attention paid to dysgenics outside of scientific journals (which most people can't access), but in building an external references section, we have to work with what's available. Harkenbane (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem, someone had listed the site mentioning it as a 'personal website'. The website however doesn't meet the classifications of a personal website. Neither does the other link you consistently remove, which contains a sourced article, and is hosted on a website that hosts a variety of material from various authors.

I changed the description of the link which will hopefully settle this matter. --Zero g (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Partial Point By Point Analysis of Article

1) Due consideration should be given to the overall impact that both genotypic IQ variation and phenotypic IQ variation have. This is not made clear within the introduction. Though the introduction contains links to phenotypic and genotypic - are there articles that specifically deal with phenotypic IQ and genotypic IQ. These particular notions require at least brief explanation within the introduction for the rest of the article for successful understanding of the article on the part of a lay reader.

2)"Some of the first studies into the subject were carried out on individuals living before the advent of IQ testing, in the late 19th century; researchers checked for dysgenic trends by looking at the fertility of men listed in WHO's WHO, these individuals being presumably of high intelligence {{dubious}}. These men, taken as a whole, had few children, implying the existence of a dysgenic trend. " > It is dubious to extrapolate from a small (potentially misrepresentative population) to a large population. Mentioning the research of the late 19th century most probably serves to undermine the credibility of the article as a whole (even if the assertion that the individuals within the WHO's WHO listing did have high IQs AND had low fertility rates, this states potentially nothing about the population as a whole). Nevertheless, common sense dictates that extrapolating from a small population size in the way that this statement refers to is quite nonsensicla and certainly DUBIOUS. > I plan to take liberties by adding a {{dubious}} mark to the 2 consecutive sentences referred to here.

3) "these reproductive trends have led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations" - this is a dubious phrasing of some vague intention which the contributor wished to make clear. Does the contributor believe that intelligence will cease to exist at some point in the future? Or, rather, that the planet will cease to be habitable (the only condition, I would assume, under which it would cease to be capable of supporting intelligent life). Perhaps the mechanism via which intelligence is jeopardised by the referred to reproductive trends should be outlined?

4) "Regardless of the methodology employed, later research has generally supported that of Vining {{dubious}}."

I have serious reservations concerning this assertion. One should not make sweeping generalisations about what a whole field of research is likely to show or present in regards to supporting the findings of one researcher (as stated within the main article). In particular, it is extremely doubtful that EVERY single assertion made witin Vining's publications is univerally agreed upon within the field of psychometrics - hence bringing the validity and encyclopedic nature of the whole of this sentence into account (though the quoted phrase does not assert that EVERY assertion is support - only "generally", whatever that means).

Even within physics, for example, one would be hard pressed to say that "Regardless of the methodology employed, later research has generally supported that of Newton's...". Clearly, if even as (ideally) apolitical subject as physics does not lend to researchers whose work is generally supportive of the work of other researcher as indicated by the sense of this quote, then it is seen that such a statement made in relation to a psychometric area as controversial as this area can not possibly be held to be encyclopedic or common sensical without further justification.

In particular, the sense within which "later research has generally supported that of Vining" should be delineated to the reader. Which PARTICULAR research observations/assertions/outcomes made by Vining have been supported - and in what way have they been supported?

5) "Conversely, while desired family size is apparently the same for women of all IQ levels,[26] highly educated women are found to be more likely to say that they desire more children than they have, indicating a "deficit fertility" in the highly intelligent.[27]"

This sentence seems dubious in the sense that it is highly subjective to state that those who are highly intelligent have a "deficity fertility" merely because they would like more children than the less intelligent, but have not gone about obtaining the same number of children. It would be far better for the article to stick to quantitative analysis (ie: the actual numbers of children that the highly intelligent have), rather than what the highly intelligent would WANT to have in terms of numbers of progeny.

To repeat, the number of children that the highly intelligent would like to have is irrelevant - it is the number that they have in totality.

6) {{Geographical imbalance}} I have added the Geographical imbalance tag as this article seems to emphasise and focus upon the US without providing citations which relate to, say, the UK or other parts of the world to the same (or, indeed, any) extent as that provided for the US. This makes the article highly biased in that it focuses upon the US to the exclusion of other countries in relation to issues which concern family planning, etc...

7) "In her review of reproductive trends in the United States, Van Court argues that "each factor - from initially employing some form of contraception, to successful implementation of the method, to termination of an accidental pregnancy when it occurs - involves selection against intelligence." This assertion may be fair and well - but it is highly misleading for quantification of the degree of selection to be given in one case (for contraception), where : "Among a sample of women using a reliable form of birth control, success rates were related to IQ, with the percentages of high, medium and low IQ women having unwanted births during a three-year interval being 3%, 8% and 11%, respectively" but NOT for the other cases. Further, given the assertion that there is "selection against intelligence", it is necessary to outline an OVERALL DEGREE OF SELECTION AGAINST INTELLIGENCE. Stating that there is selection against intelligence at every stage is dubious as it does not provide a quantitative assertion concerning the DEGREE to which that selection occurs COLLECTIVELY for ALL the stages.

8) "There is a strong tendency for countries with lower national IQ scores to have higher fertility rates and for countries with higher national IQ scores to have lower fertility rates.{{dubious}}" Here, again, there is no attempt to quantify the extent to which this would have an effect on IQ on a generation by generation level. There should be. There is no article which deals with how "national IQ scores" are calculate for the very many different countries/cultures to which this statement refers. The scientific publications in relation to the phenomenon of the article have already been stated by myself to deal primarily with the US and not to the same degree with other countries. Thus, to assert that "there is a strong tendency" seems very subjective and dubious as no attempt is made to quantify what a "strong tendency" is.

9) Given the above criticisms, I recommend that the {{unbalanced}} tag be added to the article as the article does not seem to do as thorough a job as it should do given the nature of the topic matter it seeks to address. Could, perhaps, someone else do this?

10) "Robert K. Graham in 1998 argued that genocide and class warfare, in cases ranging from the French Revolution to the present, have had a dysgenic effect through the killing of the more intelligent by the less intelligent, and "might well incline humanity toward a more primitive, more brutish level of evolutionary achievement.{{dubious}}" Clearly extremely dubious - it has little bearing on the scientific basis that the rest of the article seems to want to build upon. However, that doesn't mean I would like this sentence removed or modified (as in the other cases). It is sufficient to leave it as it is.

11) DOES INTELLIGENCE PROVIDE A SURVIVAL AND PROCREATION ADVANTAGE? : This would seem to be an important point which is not touched upon by the article. Surely, if intelligence is as useful and desirable (say, even in preference to physical beauty or attractiveness), then why does an article on dysgenics have to exist at all? Surely intelligence would be sufficiently self-selecting (or provide a sufficient survival/selective advantage) as to overcome any effects which select against intelligence? Perhaps the article could touch upon forms of political and social organisation which select against intelligence (surely, capitalism would not select against IQ - would it?). The article should touch upon the statistical difficulties inherent in any attempt to discriminate between genotypic and phenotypic intelligence within studies, and how it is a VERY REAL POSSIBILITY AND PROBABILITY that a significant number of published research studies could be erroneous in the manner in which they attempt to provide an objective basis for such a discrimination. At any rate, even if every relevant publication in academia DID perfectly distinguist between genotypic and phenotypic intelligence - it would be useful background to the reader to appreciate such nuances. Mrsadriankaur (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the geographical imbalance and unbalanced tags. I agree that the criticisms of Mrsadriankaur have merit and should be addressed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and think the argumentation for most of the content of the article is good enough, though I guess the wording could be altered in some cases for NPOV.

Welfare, health care, and birth control, are often used as examples of causative agents for dysgenics, I'm not sure of any reliable sources that point this out however.

I assume the general hypothesis is that 1st world nations will become 2nd world nations, and subsequently 3rd world nations as intelligence drops. Perhaps IQ and the wealth of nations can be used as a source. --Zero g (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If no reliable sources point this out, then it cannot go into the article, as per WP rules. Also, IQ and the Wealth of Nations isn't itself a reliable source, as per WP policy. However, the constant rise of IQ test results (a.k.a. Flynn effect) would tend to contradict any claim of a dysgenic effect in the population at large; but you already knew that.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why IQ and the Wealth of Nations couldn't be used as a source. Next, you ought to know that the Flynn effect is mainly caused by rises in the lower ends of the distribution, which doesn't contradict the dysgenic hypothesis. --Zero g (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IQatWoN a questionable source as per WP:RS. Second, the Flynn Effect impacts has raised the average of the entire curve, ever since the beginnings of IQ testing. That the average intelligence is actually rising instead of falling falsifies the dysgenic hypothesis, pure and simple.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't have time to address this before, but I don't think it is at all "pure and simple." Yes, some do believe that the Flynn Effect falsifies the dysgenic trend, but others argue that it is merely masking a small genetic effect with a large environmental one. Findings that IQ has stopped increasing in some (mostly Anglophone & Scandinavian) nations are very interesting here! At this point, they may of course be anomalies, but what would it mean if they were replicated? Harkenbane (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The data do not agree with your hypothesis, so you explain it away. I think that section has to be rewritten to make it NPOV. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics is not a generational decline to IQ, but rather a decline to genotypic IQ. I don't believe that a phenotypic increase to IQ is at all relevant to the question of whether dysgenics is occurring - I merely admit that some people do, and that, for this reason, it deserves to be in the article. Harkenbane (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mrsadriankaur, thank you for such a through analysis! I would like to respond as follows.

1. Agreed; the distinction between genotypic and phenotypic IQ is very important to the article.

2. Don't quite agree. In principle I do see your point, but the WHO's WHO study is clearly placed in the "early research" section, and it is immediately followed by "But more rigorous studies..." indicating that the study is not presented as offering meaningful results. Do you think readers will have trouble realizing that the WHO's WHO study is a dubious source of information based on the way it is presented?

3. Disagree. The statement "these reproductive trends have led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations" is factual (just look at the amount of research produced) and such statements are quite common in wikipedia articles - see for example "Since organisms and ecosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH, this raises extinction concerns, directly driven by increased atmospheric CO2..." in global warming. (If it helps to clarify, intelligence is not binary - if it is declining, that does not mean it will somehow "cease to exist".) Can you think of a better phrasing that you would prefer?

4. Disagree. Later research has generally supported Newton's work. I can agree that it would be more helpful to clarify that Vining's observations of A) a dysgenic trend which is B) stronger in the African American population were specifically what has been replicated. And, I also can agree that the world "general" is unhelpful, but only because it obscures the strength and consistency of the finding of a post WW2 dysgenic trend! If you can find a single study (even one!) on the subject which has failed to find an inverse relationship between IQ and fertility or achieved education and fertility within the United States since 1950, my hat will go off to you.

5. Agree somewhat. The so-called "deficit fertility" of high-IQ women is of interest, but probably doesn't belong in the scientific section.

6. Agree. I will add what information there is outside the U.S. (mostly for some European countries and Japan). Remember, however, that the reason the article is centered on the U.S. is simply because "much of the research into intelligence and fertility has been sadly restricted to individuals within a single nation (most of them living within the United States)."

7. Agree, but simply removing the concluding statement addresses the issue.

8. Disagree. A statistically "strong" correlation is simply one where r > .5; there is nothing dubious about reporting the existence of a trend which appears in a dataset.

9. No contest. I don't share your apparent view regarding the seriousness of the concerns you raise, but, because addressing them will improve the article in some cases, it doesn't hurt anything at this stage to leave the tag(s) for now.

10. Agree. Graham's claims are sensationalistic, but they're in the history section.

11. This is really a multiple question.

11a. You asked whether intelligence provides a fitness advantage, but fitness is not absolute; it exists with respect to the environment. Right now, for human beings living in Western nations that have been studied, intelligence provides a fitness disadvantage. To ask whether intelligence offers a reproductive advantage in an absolute sense is not really meaningful.

11b. "Perhaps the article could touch upon forms of political and social organisation which select against intelligence (surely, capitalism would not select against IQ - would it?)." Ah, but I thought you didn't want to stray into realms which were dubious! Any explanations for this are speculative. I could easily provide some, but they aren't nearly as solid as the research showing the existence of dysgenesis.

11c. "The article should touch upon the statistical difficulties inherent in any attempt to discriminate between genotypic and phenotypic intelligence within studies" Maybe the article should touch on the fact that no such difficulties exist. Evolution changes genotypes by affecting phenotypes.

11d. "VERY REAL POSSIBILITY AND PROBABILITY that a significant number of published research studies could be erroneous" As all studies achieved the standard p-values below .05, the most real aspect of this possibility is how very small it is.

--Harkenbane (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Physiological Limits on Human Intelligence

It would perhaps be worthwhile for the article to mention that there would seem to be physiological limits placed upon human information processing and intelligence (and, at any rate, the laws of physics place such limits - though far in excess of human capabilities). This provides an indication of the degree to which Homo Sapiens has "reached peak-IQ" (sorry) - and how even the most ardent application of state Eugenics would probably fail to improve human living conditions one iota.

Mrsadriankaur (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Research doesn't indicate this. From the eugenics article "Small differences in average IQ at the group level might theoretically have large effects on social outcomes. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray altered the mean IQ (100) of the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth's population sample by randomly deleting individuals below an IQ of 103 until the population mean reached 103. This calculation was conducted twice and averaged together to avoid error from the random selection. This test showed that the new group with an average IQ of 103 had a poverty rate 25% lower than a group with an average IQ of 100. Similar substantial correlations in high school drop-out rates, crime rates, and other outcomes were measured."

This discussion should take place in the eugenics article however. --Zero g (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Individuals with gifted-level IQs (130+) are clearly capable of more than individuals with retarded level IQs (70-), and the majority of this difference is known to be mediated by genetics. Perhaps some Homo sapiens have reached peak intelligence, but this is not true for the entire species (sorry). Harkenbane (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lynn criticism

Harkenbane removed the following content with the edit summary, "removed excessive critiques of Richard Lynn".[27] Since he is a major source for the article, I think it is important to report a serious allegation regarding his source of funding that may have affected the objectivity of his research. This does not duplicate Kamin's criticism since Kamin does not discuss his funding source. I have restored this content along with its source. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Lynn (along with William Shockley) is a major recipient of grants from the Pioneer Fund. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights advocacy organization, has characterized the Pioneer Fund as a hate group.

Richard Lynn is not even remotely a "major source" for the article; he is mentioned because of a single study he co-authored which replicated another researcher's work. Further, any criticisms you may have of him are only really relevant insofar as they deal with his research in the area of dysgenics. Thus, although some mention of Richard Lynn's controversial status is warranted, your interest in Lynn is not helping to improve this article, Wsiegmund. Harkenbane (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid comments like "your interest in Lynn is not helping to improve this article". May I remind you of the previsions of WP:OWN, to wit, "working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors"? I rewrote the quotation above to mention Vining, as well. I think it is relevant if it only mentioned Lynn, however, since it is a serious allegation regarding his source of funding that may have affected the objectivity of his research. Now it casts doubt on that of the Vining, as well. Shockley did no research. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wsiegmund, there is a difference between attacking research, and attacking people - that's why your interest in Lynn really isn't helping to improve this article. If you wished to add all of the information you have on Richard Lynn to the article on Richard Lynn, that might be of benefit to Wikiedia. But entensive paragraphs on Lynn (or anyone else) simply do not belong in this article. If you have any scientific studies to contribute to the article, or any reviews of the studies given in the article, please add them! Harkenbane (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Material that casts doubt on the quality of the "scientific studies" of Lynn, Vining and van Court provides a bit of balance to content that is well outside the mainstream of scientific thought, in my opinion. If you can provide a reference from the journals Science or Nature to show otherwise, you might have an argument. It appears to me that much of the article content is based on "research" that is politically and/or ideologically motivated. Allegations to that effect, if they satisfy WP:RS, clearly belong in the article.

The fertility content is WP:OR, in my opinion. Other editors should not be required to evaluate correlation coefficients to determine if content is accurate. If the studies on fertility that you cite are linked to the article topic in the way that is alleged, you should be able to supply reliable sources to that effect. Otherwise, that content must be removed per the policy cited. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Marian Van Court

The article on Richard Lynn's coauthor Marian Van Court has been proposed for deletion. -- if anyone objects, please remove the PROD tag and take it to AfD. I do not object, since it seems to me she is of no particular significance in this work. DGG (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(As I've noted on that page, I also have no objections; feel free to delete the article Marian Van Court. Harkenbane (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC) )

Why intelligence?

Why does this article focus on intelligence? Genetic deterioration may occur in all inherited traits, and it seems stupid to focus on one feature that cannot even be measured properly. Better focus on back problems, diabetes, short-sightedness, cancer, autism and what have you (Category:Genetic disorders) instead of "intelligence". dab (𒁳) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the researchers! Most scientists are narrowly interested in seeing whether IQ is rising or falling. I actually do know of a study examining a dysgenic trend with respect to obesity - since obesity has a heritability of approximately .4 if memory serves, and weight is positively correlated with fertility, this trait can be expected to increase. However, that was only one study. Does anyone else know of some information on other traits besides IQ/education? Harkenbane (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One further point: should the term "intelligence" be used? I'm changing necessary references to "IQ," which is what was being measured; many researchers have problems with the idea of IQ actually being a measure of intelligence. Does anyone have a problem with this? Harkenbane (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream scientists have little interest in genetic deterioration of intelligence for the reasons you suggest. As a result, the only literature is that of a small group who publish in journals like Intelligence (journal) and Mankind Quarterly. They may be peer reviewed, but it seems to be a rather small and isolated of like-minded individuals. Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton are on the editorial boards of both journals and both Lynn and Rushton have received funding from the Pioneer Fund, a hate group, according to the SPLC.[28] The much-criticized The Bell Curve made use of this literature. The current article content is largely the work of Harkenbane (talk · contribs) and Zero g (talk · contribs). The former has been pushing Lynn and Van Court since 2005,[29], as well as Rushton, a little later.[30][31] Both editors have shown themselves to be civil, but persistent, POV pushers, who revert the deletion of dubious content and remove criticisms of this same content with the argument that those criticisms belong elsewhere or are too extensive. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote this, Wsiegmund: "However, content from reliable sources, especially Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) listed journal articles, is welcome." So please tell us, is such content welcome, or is it not welcome? If not, then why not - has Wikipedia become a place where science published in recognized journals like Intelligence is supposed to take a backseat to unsubstantiated opinion? But if such content is welcome, why do you insist on distracting readers from research published in peer reviewed journals with information gathered from the Southern Povery Law center, founded as "as small civil rights law firm" which displays a "hate map" on its main page? Wsiegmund, I'd like you to think carefully about who here is really a "polite POV pusher." Harkenbane (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the point is, specifically the journal Intelligence has on its board of editors several researchers of the small, fringy movance that Wsiegmund is talking about, especially JP Rushton at its head. Therefore, it is rather unsurprising that it is the single largest publisher of Rushton's papers. That could be described as a conflict of interest to start with. At the very least, it casts doubt on the impartiality of the review board. If you want other sources that hold Rushton and the Pioneer Fund grantees in the same regard, see here: "The Pioneer Fund is infamous not only for its funding of classic eugenics research in the pre-World War II era, but also for continued funding of opposition to civil rights and racist science. The current Pioneer director is University of Western Ontario psychologist J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton is best known for his advocacy of a theory correlating genital size inversely with intelligence and morality and parsing this by race."--Ramdrake (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your point. However: A) Rushton wasn't at the top of Intelligence 25 years ago, was he? B) Rushton being at its head doesn't exactly disprove findings published there - it's still listed in http://scientific.thomson.com/mjl/ - and, most importantly, C) Intelligence is just one of many journals cited. Look at the references given for "recent research;" ignoring the Southern Poverty Law Center and various reviews on Lynn, I see Psychological Bulletin, Social Biology(4x), Intelligence(3x), American Psychologist, U.S. Bureau of the Census., American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Harkenbane (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to list the references that mention "dysgenics", please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question dab, it's about "intelligence" because only racists/right wing nutcases believe this claptrap. It can only be credible to someone with only the briefest acquaintance with selection. For example the opening sentence of the article sums up the complete lack of knowledge about selection of people who believe this claptrap: "dysgenics is a term describing the progressive evolutionary "weakening" or genetic deterioration of a population of organisms relative to their environment, often due to relaxation of natural selection" Well I'm no expert in natural selection but it seems obvious to me that if the environment no longer selects for a trait, then by definition that trait is no longer advantageous within that environment, therefore the species cannot be weakened relative to it's environment. Or to put it another way, if the trait gives no selective advantage, then lack of the trait cannot be said to weaken the species. Surely that's common sense. As for it being a term in population genetics, well my copy of "Population Genetics: A Concise Guide" by John H. Gillespie doesn't mention dysgenics a single time. I wonder how many real population geneticists (rather than people with a right wing biological deterministic political axe to grind) really consider it a valid concept any more? Not many I'd wager. Google of dysgenics with "population genetics" Alun (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. The History and Geography of Human Genes, a reference cited by population genetics, includes no mention of dysgenics in the index, nor are works authored by Vining, Lynn, or Van Court referenced (Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza: The History and Geography of Human Genes: (Abridged paperback edition) Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691029059). Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We've gone over this before over a year ago. Put the article up for deletion if you want, but simply talking about it isn't going to make the article disappear. --Zero g (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's not a question of putting the article up for deletion, it's a question of accurately describing what the article is supposed to be about. There are some unsupported statements in the lead, especially that dysgenics is a population genetics term and that it is the study of populations that are maladapted due to natural selection. This second is contradicted by the statement that dysgenics is the antonym of eugenics. Clearly eugenics is "The scientific study of artificial selection towards a particular set of desired characteristics."[32] so it's got nothing to do with natural selection. Likewise dysgenic "[A] system of breeding or selection that is genetically deleterious or disadvantageous."[33] So presumably dysgenics is the scientific study of this form of artificial selection. The point is this, both eugenic and dysgenic practices are forms of artificial selection, on the one hand the artificial selection is done in order to promote traits perceived as advantageous, on the other the selection is done to promote traits perceived as disadvantageous, this is what makes them antonyms, but neither is concerned with natural selection. Indeed natural selection could never produce an animal that was maladapted for the environment to which it evolved, but it can produce an animal that is maladapted for a different environment, the obvious example in humans is sickle-cell disease, a homozygous lethal mutation of the haemoglobin gene, it is rapidly lost in regions there malaria is not present, but it does provide an adaptive advantage to heterozygous individuals in malarial regions. On the other hand traits that are perceived as advantageous by a breeder may not have any selective advantage in a natural environment, and could be perceived as both eugenic and dysgenic, think of a pug for example, the very traits that are selected for due to their desirability to the dog breeder are the ones that make this animal a particularly unhealthy specimen, prone to breathing and eye problems, pugs are both eugenic and dysgenic for the same traits. Alun (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosquitoes can become better at harvesting humans for blood while mankind as a species doesn't evolve. In that scenario the human species weakens relative to its environment. In the case of intelligence, low intelligence gives a reproductive advantage, but people with a low intelligence die (on average) at an earlier age, so that could be used as one of many arguments that low intelligence weakens humans relative to their environment. --Zero g (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The first one isn't dysgenics: it's a result of competition. Also, please supply references that low intelligence gives a reproductive advantage. First news I have. From what I know of evolution in humans, high intelligence is what gave humans a reproductive advantage and allowed them to survive. Lastly, you cannot build a WP article based on what you think exists and use arguments to prop up your position. You must research the subject and then write about the significant positions around it. However, writing about a fringe subject in science as if it were mainstream doesn't help the reader.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several references in the article to studies that show people with low intelligence have more children, hence they have a reproductive advantage, for whatever reason. Did you actually read the article? --Zero g (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. While there may be a correlation between fertility and low IQ scores (and most serious researchers will dispute that), it is wrong to assume a causal link, i.e. that low intelligence confers any kind of reproductive advantage. Human history has proven just the contrary. Please don't take your assumptions for facts.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you reference your claim that most 'serious' researchers would dispute it? It would make an interesting addition to the article. And if it's wrong to assume a casual link then I guess it's wrong to assume the obvious. I was also referring to modern society, not the stone age. --Zero g (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Link disputed here, here, this paper actually explains why, even if people with lower IQ were to have higher fertility, it wouldn't influence overall world population IQ. The actual causal link isn't that lower intelligence people have a higher fertility rate, it's that higher education (correlated with higher IQ) causes a stronger restriction on fertility rates (for the most part through birth control methods). So, you have it backwards.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, what is backwards about this? I'm really interested, here - not only have I not seen these (exact) articles before, but I don't follow your conclusion. As I understand it, if any trait is heritable, and that trait is related to (surviving) offspring, then the level of that trait must change throughout the population over time - this is straightforward evolution. I'm reading through the articles right now, but I'm very interested to see you clarify yourself on this. Harkenbane (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you must conclude that some trait is dysgenic, then you would need to conclude that it is high intelligence which is dysgenic, as people with high intelligence have a lower reproductive rate (due in part to greater use of contraceptive methods). You posit that low-IQ people have a higher fertility rate; scientists find that it is higher-IQ people which have a lower fertility rate. Therefore, the argument is backwards. Furthermore, one of the references I provided actually demonstrates that even with differing fertility rates, there is no net impact on the average IQ of the population. In other words and with all due respect, this whole concept is just bad science, possibly advanced (by those few scientists who advance it) to further a poligtical or ideological agenda.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, there's no such thing as a dysgenic "trait" in the context of dysgenic science. A reproductive trend may be viewed as dysgenic because it alters the distribution of one or more traits, even though it is quite obvious that which traits are of value is subjective; no one disputes this. And to say that high IQ is a trait which reduces reproductive fitness is exactly the same as saying that low IQ is a trait that enhances reproductive fitness. Do you see something backwards about saying that the glass is half full instead of half empty?

Even more, while I'm favorably impressed that you were able to find evidence that there are researchers who don't think a negative correlation between IQ and fertility means there must be a dysgenic trend, and I strongly urge you to incorporate these claims into the article if you haven't done so already, the article you provided on "How Intelligence Affects Fertility" is actually friendly to the dysgenic hypothesis, as the authors, Retherford and Sewell, write: "in modern societies, the direction of effect of education on family size may predict the direction of evolution of genotypic IQ. Further research is needed to test the generability of our findings" and reiterate, "the direction of effect of education on fertility may furnish a plausible basis for predicting the direction of evolution of genotypic IQ, but firmer conclusions must await further research..." That education provides the link between IQ and fertility doesn't cause that link to vanish. Instead, their research provides a causative explanation for the dysgenic trend! So while I encourage you to continue the discussion, I don't see that you understand this topic very well.Harkenbane (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is a definite logical difference between the two situations: one means that higher-IQ (or highly-educated) people actually have a lower fertility rate, and that less highly-educated people have a normal fertility rate. That isn't equivalent to highly-educated people having a normal fertility rate and less highly-educated people having a higher fertility rate. There is no reproductive advantage to having a lower education. However, this fails to take into account several issues:

• Children of highly-educated people tend to live longer than those not so highly-educated. Thus the survival rate is higher for them, and any possible impact to average IQ is mitigated.
• The IQs of children of both low-IQ and high-IQ parents tend to regress towards the mean, therefore negating even more any dysgenic trend.

Overall, contrary to what you seem to think, the article you quoted isn't friendly towards the dysgenic hypothesis, it is being strictly neutral. The point is, the dysgenic hypothesis is WP:FRINGE science, and this article should reflect that fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No Ramdrake, the article is not neutral. Did you read it? Although their phrasing is of course conservative, the study authors conclude that the relationship between fertility and education shows how genotypic IQ is evolving, and they are explicit in saying that the purpose of the study was to describe and explain this trend. Look:

(In our previous study) it was estimated, using a simple genetic model, that the generational change in mean genotypic IQ for the complete cohort and its offspring was about one-third of an IQ point decline in a generation. By genotypic IQ is meant the expected value of measured 1Q for an individual of a given gene configuration, or genotype, under the hypothetical assumption that the individual was raised in the average environment obtaining in the population. Although our earlier paper examined the direction and magnitude of effect of IQ on family size, it did not address the questions of (1) why this effect is negative and (2) why it is considerably more negative for women than for men. These questions are addressed in this paper.

Regarding your other points, the effect of regression to the mean is routinely accounted for in the literature - I realize that you might rather not take my word for it, but you ought to read the literature for yourself before assuming that it isn't! And greater longevity in children of the highly educated doesn't impact the dysgenic trend - when they die, they are not replaced. Again, these kinds of objections are creative and may seem feasible from the standpoint of someone who isn't familiar with the issue, but I still don't think you understand dysgenics, and I wish you would take your lack of familiarity with the subject into account when making edits - I've provided a more than ten scientific articles showing that there really is a dysgenic trend, and while you might not like two or three of them for various reasons, the research showing a dysgenic trend is still quite strong compared to the two scientific articles you've provided against it, since the Preston & Campbell article simply proposes a model whereby dysgenics might not be occurring, and Lam's article offers nothing more than a positive review of Preston & Campbell!

Looking over your personal page, I'm guessing that you are able to write computer programs; is this correct? I've written code exploring how traits are affected by natural selection, and I can vouch for the fact that it isn't difficult or time consuming if you're a seasoned programmer. I really think you would benefit from playing around with population models - try coding in a population of, say, 10,000 organisms with only a single trait varying on a gaussian distribution made up of heritabile and nonheritable sources, and include differential lifetime fertility, regression to the mean, differential longevity rates, a good dose of randomness, and anything else you're interested in. Doing this will allow you to see for yourself how traits evolve - if you reduce the heritability to zero, evolution won't occur; likewise if you constrain the population to constantly regress to the same mean, evolution will never occur far above or below this mean regardless of heritability or the strength of differential fertility (and this corresponds to the model used by Preston & Campbell). But, so long as heritability is anything greater than zero, fertility isn't the same at all levels of the trait, and regression is coded to the current population mean rather than to a fixed mean, it won't matter who lives longer, or whether the total fertility rate causes positive or negative population growth; evolution will occur. Doing this wouldn't prove genotypic IQ is falling, but I do think you'd have a better understanding of the issue if you gave it a try. Harkenbane (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful links. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The first link doesn't seem to be of much use unless you pay 14$ to read what it's about. The second link argues that education, not IQ, causes the decline in fertility. There are however studies that show that education has little influence on IQ upon adulthood, which indicates that educational achievement can be used as an IQ score. The third link explains why regression toward the mean doesn't lower the average IQ, but it doesn't provide an adequate answer to differential fertility rates. That's my opinion however, and I guess you could add this information to the article. --Zero g (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point: the causal link seems to be from higher education to lower fertility (through enhanced use of contraception methods). Therefore, there is no reproductive advantage for low-IQ people, just a reproductive disadvantage to high-education (and presumably high-IQ) people. Second, if you re-read the third reference, it explains why differential fertility rates between high-IQ people and low-IQ people does not lead to a deterioration of overall average IQ. It's in fact mainstream science disproving the dysgenic hypothesis.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but I haven't seen the proof that education has a higher negative correlation to fertility than IQ. And even then it doesn't disprove the hypothesis as you've indicated yourself. I also disagree with the conclusion of the 3rd reference, but if you can show their statistical research in the article that'd be awesome. Also, none of the authors seem to be notable scientists, so I don't see how it can be mainstream science. --Zero g (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of the papers are published in the American Journal of Sociology, so they should be mainstream enough. The other is published in Intelligence, and maybe you have a point that Intelligence isn't as prominent a mainstream journal :) . Next, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions of a paper is irrelevant: the article should contain notable opinions on the subject; your personal opinions don't count. And one of the paper I supplied makes the precise point that fertility is negatively correlate with higher education. But the point of all this was to point out that it is erroneous to state (as you did) that low intelligence confers a reproductive advantage. That is pure nonsense.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I hope you can add some interesting information to the article, and hopefully not the usual political correct theorizing that is popular nowadays. --Zero g (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the following quotation from the first paper that you cite above indicates that differential fertility does not lead to a decline in intelligence if intergenerational mobility across groups exists, which it certainly does. According to Figure 3, a change in differential fertility may cause a change in intelligence, but only a small change assuming endogamous mating and a negligible change under the assumption of random mating. After two or three generations, no further changes would be expected to occur. I think that this makes the content that I earlier identified as WP:OR and attempted to remove, not relevant to the article topic.[34] I quote at length for the benefit of one of our editors who is not able to access this journal. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"The expectation that fertility differentials would lead to a decline in intelligence scores appears largely to be based upon a fallacious analogy to closed subpopulations. We have shown that, once mobility between parent and child scores is admitted into a simple model of IQ inheritance, equilibria are established in the populations' IQ distribution even with persistent fertility differentials."

"As intuition suggests, the equilibrium distribution of IQ will be affected by differential fertility. We have shown that fertility differentials favoring low IQ groups will generally produce a lower equilibrium mean IQ than fertility differentials favoring high IQ. The differences are not large empirically and appear to be smaller when intermarriage between IQ classes is more frequent and when the variance introduced into the IQ inheritance matrix is greater."

You are welcome to examine my more than 5000 edits on en.wikipedia, 14% of which are to article talk pages and 2% of which are to Dysgenics, Eugenics, Race and intelligence, and Heritability of IQ and their respective talk pages.[35] I don't think these numbers suggest a pattern of either POV-pushing, nor tendentious editing. Those for Harkenbane and Zero g do, in my opinion.[36][37] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This article does not seem to be about dysgenics at all (the study of selection for perceived disadvantageous traits), it seems to be about the belief that was rife during the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century amongst certain sections of society that higher birth rates amongst an arbitrarily constructed "socially undesirable" sections of society was damaging to society as a whole (unsurprisingly it was the section of society these eugenicists belonged to that was seen as desirable), and the fact that although this Victorian/Edwardian era belief has been abandoned by serious biologists and scientists, a few radical right wing biological determinists still cling tenaciously to this belief. Of course it is political, the fundamental point of these right wing biological determinists is that they believe that modern societies that provide, for example, social security and universal health care, are damaging to the population as a whole, it's little more than an appeal to primitivism. But of course it presupposes that birth rates amongst people with a high IQ has in the past been higher than for those with low IQ, a spurious notion, for one thing it is not birth rates that are important, but survival rates, if a higher proportion of the children of "intelligent" people survive to reproduce, then birthrates become unimportant. Indeed humans live in a social environment, it is social norms that determine which individuals are more reproductively successful and not natural selection, there is no evidence as far as I can see that any single social/cultural environment has in the past encouraged "intelligent" people to reproduce at higher rates than the less intelligent. In fact it is probably true that the very cleverest have always had less children, but have also invested more in those children that they have had. Of course having less children makes people much wealthier, children are a huge drain on resources, so we would expect those people with less children to be wealthier and have more opportunities for social advancement anyway. Since reading this claptrap I have been thinking about the social norms of late antiquity to the middle ages in Europe, during this 1,000 or so year period the very cleverest men and women tended to become monks or nuns, effectively removing them from the reproductive population, it's akin to sterilising every clever boy or girl before they reproduce. Indeed during this time it was the aristocracy that had the real reproductive advantages, but they tended not to be very bright but were very bloodthirsty, if human nature were as biologically deterministic as these right wing people claim, then Europe would have a huge proportion of rather stupid but very violent hooligans, actually looking at European history there might be something in that. But of course immediately after this thousand year period of extreme "dysgenic" activity Europe enjoyed a huge blossoming of cultural and scientific creativity with the renaisance and the enlightenment, hardly what one would expect from a population that had been purged of it's "clever" genes while it's "aggressive" genes had been selected for. My personal opinion is that this article serves no purpose in and of itself, it is so closely tied to the eugenics article that the best thing to do would be to redirect it to the eugenics article, as it is it merely reproduces much of that article anyway. Alun (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that; there's far too much political rhetoric being tossed around here. The whole question of diminishing intelligence is a moot one--IQ tests generally only measure culturally (or sub-culturally) pertinent information anyway; which is why non-Westerners and the uneducated have historically scored lower than better educated, typically White, North Americans and Europeans. This problem was addressed when psychologists changed IQ tests to accommodate people of different social backgrounds. The problem is far from solved, but the point is, measurements of IQ and estimations of intelligence will vary from culture to culture and time to time, so any question of a dysgenic trend in general intelligence is almost totally meaningless--unless you have a particular social agenda.--Pariah (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The trends measured have been within cultural boundaries so cultural and racial differences do not play a role. Regardless, these kind of discussions/speeches are counter productive because everyone happens to have a social agenda, also, you don't seem to be up to date about the scientific consensus when it comes to IQ tests. --Zero g (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a questionable claim--cultural boundaries are ephemeral. People might be ostensibly within the same definition of culture (e.g. "American" or "British"), but it's very difficult to see how an inner-city kid, a kid living on a farm, and a kid going to private school would all perform identically on an IQ test with culturally relevant questions. The concept of intelligence is also ephemeral and far from there being a scientific consensus, has always been debated in scientific circles. But let's say there is a consensus, and everybody uses a Weschler-style measure of things like short-term memory or visual reasoning, it's still debatable whether these skills necessarily have survival value. They do in the modern world, but only because the modern world values them. 100,000 years ago, verbal reasoning was probably mostly irrelevant, and 100,000 years in the future, we have no idea what will be needed. The question of "genetic deterioration" is always one of values, not of truth. The truth of it is not something that human beings can answer, except maybe in retrospect. Otherwise, it's up to evolution and God to sort out.--Pariah (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually having done a search at PubMed Central for dysgenic I have found 446 articles that make reference to dysgenic.[38] The thing is none of the ones I have looked at are at all about intelligence. They are about scientists deliberately making crosses of organisms that they know will produce a deletarious result in the offspring in order to investigate the causes of these delatarious effects. For example Evidence for maternally transmitted small interfering RNA in the repression of transposition in Drosophila virilis. Anyone can open this document, PubMed Central only lists open access papers. As such I suggest that it would be informative to take a look at this paper and search it for the term "dysgenic". One will find references such as:

• Aside from Penelope, at least four other unrelated elements are mobilized in the dysgenic cross:
• Here we examine the pattern of TE-derived repeat-associated siRNA in the hybrid dysgenic cross.
• In the 15 years since the original observation of hybrid dysgenesis between strain 9 and strain 160, the degree of sterility found in dysgenic F1 males and females has decreased somewhat.
• We also examined Penelope siRNA expression in adult progeny of both the dysgenic (Fig. 1B, lane Dys) and nondysgenic (Fig. 1B, lane Ndys) cross. In the nondysgenic cross, adults of both sexes exhibited presumptive Penelope siRNA, whereas in the dysgenic cross, this species of RNA was absent from adult males but present in adult females. Evidence presented in the next section indicates that the presumptive siRNA observed in the adult females of the dysgenic cross derives from the X chromosome transmitted by the strain 160 males in the cross.
  

"Flux control and excess capacity in the enzymes of glycolysis and their relationship to flight metabolism in Drosophila melanogaster":

• P-elements were excised by using male flies in standard dysgenic crosses (19).
  

Clearly in biology dysgenics is a specific stratagem used to breed organisms that are known to produce compromised offspring, by the study of these offspring biologists can learn about the in vivo molecular biology of these organisms.
Clearly dysgenic crosses are a deliberate biological strategy.
When I do a PubMed Central search for dysgenics on the other hand there are a mere five results, One of which is a publication from 1923, two of which are book reviews for a book that was published in 1960. Another is the abstracts of a meeting from 1970 in which William Shockley gave a talk and the last of is another book review.[39]
This sort of result must beg the question, why does this article not say what dysgenic crosses are? Why does it not discuss the sort of breedings that Drosophila spp. researchers undertake in their research? Why is it about "intelligence" when a search of the current available medical and biological research literature does not mention humans or intelligence at all? If this article is about dysgenics then make it about that subject, otherwise it appears to be little more than a place to push a discredited right wing political agenda. Alun (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this content is relevant to the article topic, satisfies WP:RS and, hence, should be incorporated into the article. It may be that the human/intelligence content will need to be trimmed further to satisfy WP:UNDUE, based on the relative small number of citations that you have found on that aspect of the topic. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I fully agree.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenic fallacy

I added a new section, Dysgenic fallacy, to the article with one of the citations suggested by Ramdrake. It probably could be clarified and expanded. The other citations could be added, as well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to understand (certainly seems a bit counterintuitive to me), but I guess that's the nature of it. To clarify, the whole section is based on the reference cited at the end, right? Richard001 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the contribution of Ramdrake above on this topic for another reference that could be added. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The clarification between value-laden and fitness based deterioration

I think any article discussing scientific aspects of this topic needs to make a clear distinction between fact and value. When you say 'bad genes', there are two different meanings possible: Bad in terms of fitness (genes that lower the biological fitness of the organism (and the other genes it in)), and bad in terms of our values. The former is value-free, but isn't generally what people mean if they say 'bad genes'. To give a couple of examples, one such case might be myopia: genes for good eyesight might deteriorate if we no longer need it. If we returned to our old lifestyles, e.g. in Africa before we could make lenses, this would probably cause a significant reduction in our fitness, but in 'modern societies' it probably makes no difference (the effects of environment make this one particularly difficult to grapple with). A good example to distinguish fitness from desirability is rape - genes for rape may increase fitness (see sociobiological theories of rape). In terms of values, people becoming more myopic is probably something we would like not to happen, though it probably isn't something anyone would advocate sterilizing people over. In the case of rape, we'd be quite happy to see such genes deteriorate (and 'rape genes' would also probably be genetically deleterious in the current environment, even if possibly adaptive in the past).

This distinction needs to be made clearly and early on in the article. Richard001 (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you; unfortunately the page is currently in a bit of a muddle, but I think we really ought to remember this in the future. Harkenbane (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring & Mediation?

Ramdrake, I haven't looked at any recent response you might have made above, and I'd like to, but I'm concerned by your recent edit, tagged with "Please take this to the talk page rather than edit-warring. There are serious reasons why this is spelled out this way." I was originally looking forward to trying to incorporating Mrsadriankaur's suggestions into the article, and now that isn't really feasible, because I can see that you'll simply revert anything you don't like. Revert if you must! But telling others not to do as you do won't fly. Would you be bothered if I called for mediation? Harkenbane (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against informal mediation, but I wouldn't expect it to vindicate your position too much: as it stands, this article is based on the works of a handful of fringe scientists, the dysgenic effect on intelligence still remains to be demonstrated, etc. In short, it qualifies as WP:FRINGE. This needs to be corrected.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is however you lack sources to back up your emotional arguments. From what I gathered you have one source that claims that there is no dysgenic trend, but I haven't seen the argumentation since the full article isn't available to me. Regardless, I have little time to edit, and most of it is wasted on discussions, so I have no option but to revert till you use sound sources for your edits, or edit in a manner that all parties can agree with. --Zero g (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. You can't decide you'll keep edit-warring and reverting because you can't be bothered to discuss the issues on the talk page. I have raised several concerns, and you haven't addressed them; you have just reverted to your favourite version of the article. That's not the way to build consensus, and judging by many of the other comments on this talk page, you don't have consensus. Please discuss.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Like the edit history says, you're removing sourced content and adding disputed content that isn't sourced since the provided source does not back up the claims that are made. And as a matter of fact, you are the one who continuously edit wars and refuses to work toward consensus. It should go without saying that as an editor it's my duty to revert vandalism, whether it's from a bored 12 years old, or an adult on a crusade with too much time on his hands. --Zero g (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd been following the talk page, Alun added a sourced definition of Dysgenics, which is better than the unsourced definition that was there. The some of the rest was removed by Wsiegmund on grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE (including some rather gross, unsourced overgeneralizations). Furthermore, there is a consensus being built around a new direction for this article. From waht I can see, you just reverte because you didn't like the new edits. Well, it doesn't work that way.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz and Zero g

I'd like to ask Jagz and Zero g to discuss their objections to the article, and wholesale reverting of edits done by no less than 3 different editors, in order to bring this article back to their preferred version. This seems to me as a violation of WP:POINT. It would be more constructive to discuss edits here.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is another case of you Wikilawyering. Me and Jagz have reverted the deletion of a large section of the article, as well as the addition of a badly written higly POV introduction. Your behavior is juvenile, disruptive, and needs to stop. --Zero g (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest reviewing WP:DR, please? "Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." I may not be doing a very good job of this, but before the recent efforts of several editors, the article was heavily skewed toward one particular view, as pointed out by a number of editors above. Can we discuss how to proceed? We can try WP:RFC, but it seems to me that those who have already commented have suggested that the article was unbalanced and emphasized a particular aspect of the article topic in preference to other views. Further comments are likely to continue in a similar vein, I suspect. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is balanced, as it describes the published literature on dysgenics in a neutral fashion.

While I understand your point of view, that dysgenics is unscientific ideology driven nonsense (which I've been more than willing to incorporate in the intro despite the lack of a good source) you need sources that are 1) about dysgenics and 2) correctly state what the article says the source states, to add that POV (in a neutral manner) to the article.

As mentioned before, I suggest you read the available literature and make edits if you feel that the article does not neutrally describe the currently sourced material.

Let it be known that your lack of interest for dysgenics, other than that you seem to vehemently disagree with the concept, isn't a very healty motivation for editing this article. If I for example disliked Donald Duck it wouldn't be a very healthy thing to start googling up negative sources of Donald Duck, next edit war in the article to get in some negative information, like adding to the introduction that the well known duck is a racist and nazi. [40] --Zero g (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, refrain from personal attacks. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the researchers you are quoting for sources are for the most part very controversial and their views highly disputed, even debunked. Their science has been called "fringe", "junk", "bad" science, even "racist" science. This is why it is important to properly frame the theory as not being part of mainstream science, because it isn't. One of the main issues this article had was that it presented the dysgenic hypothesis as if it were accepte, mainstream science when it absolutely isn't.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where I made a personal attack, if I caused offense I apologize. Back on topic: As it is you have one or two sources disputing the validity of a dysgenic trend. I've seen no source labeling any of the studies on dysgenics as fringe/junk/bad science. I'm personally not concerned what the popular media and special interest groups have to say about pioneer fundees. I think however that the article could use a section on the pioneer fund, and its unique role regarding stimulating research in this area. Given that the pioneer fund funded any of the dysgenic research mentioned in the article. --Zero g (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to start here and here. While not specifically about dysgenics, these articles explain in depth the role the Pioneer Fund played in eugenics research, especially in the USA. Of particular importance is the section "The Pioneer Fund in the New Millenium" in the first ref, pp 815-825. Again, the discussion is not specifically about dysgenics, but it gives a good background about who these researchers are, and why their research should legitimately be considered junk science (or to use the terms used in the article, politically and ideologically motivated.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, their research being junk science would be an opinion, not a fact. Secondly, this is the viewpoint I'm trying to incorporate into the introduction, but in such a way it isn't provided as a fact but as an opinion.

While at it, how about making a Pioneer Fund grantee category in the eugenics category? It would seem like the proper way to go about it rather than editing and maintaining this information in each article. --Zero g (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, their research being politically/ideologically motivated is something which comes back often enough in the literature that it is the mainstream opinion. It needs to be presented as fact that the hypothesis of a dysgenic trend in intelligence is a junk science concept, an that it is not borne out by testing results.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding sources to support your POV. --Zero g (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already provided the sources here. If you can't be bothered to read them, that's not my problem, but please don't tell me this is an unsupported viewpoint. It is very well supported, and it is mainstream.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the current article giving too much weight to fringe science?

I am opening a content RfC in the hopes it will settle the current revert warring by giving a wider community input, so a consensus can be derived as to whether this article is giving too much weight to a subject which might otherwise be considered WP:FRINGE; on the other side, is it being too critical of what is or could be a legitimate endeavour of science?--Ramdrake (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article gives far to much weight to these fringe povs. From my search of the biological sciences literature the main use of dysgenic is the selective breeding of strains of organisms that produce non-viable offspring for scientific study.[41] [42] Alun (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Encarta gives a very similar definition, except instead of non-viable offsprings, it talks about offspring with reduced survivability. The whole claptrap about differential reproduction rates of the "less intelligent", isn't dysgenic, because more offspring actually means increased chances for survival.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an biological science encyclopedia. --Jagz (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not even sure this article should exist. "Disgenic" is a word, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The concept, as an opposite of eugenics, is best discussed in the Eugenics article and is definitely too fringe a scientific view (if even that, it is more science fiction) to have let alone dominate an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Meat puppetry isn't going to solve this dispute. --Zero g (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, WP:AGF. Several admins can certify to the fact that Slrubenstein, Alun and myself are three very different individuals. I would ask that you please retract your unfounded accusations, lest you show you are acting in bad faith.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Meat puppetry isn't the same as sock puppetry. I can't but assume you've invited these users [43] [44] to help you push your pov, given the recent edit warring by these users. This is very unhelpful and obstructive behavior. --Zero g (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I told Alun nothing about the RfC, and I just mentioned the RfC to Slrubenstein, without any suggestion as to what he should comment, and without any obligation for him to comment. Also, please be very careful of unfounded meatpuppetry accusations, as your behaviour and that of User:Jagz also look very similar to meatpuppetry.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from your known buddies are not very convincing. --Jagz (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that now that the page is protected, we should wait for more comments from other editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is somewhat of a sham since after it started, Wobble and Ramdrake kept changing the version of the article. --Jagz (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The version now protected is more critical of fringe science. If this version is still found to be too fringy, then indeed your favourite version was way too fringy. Please don't try to short-circuit dispute resolution processes by discrediting this RfC.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So if the RfC says this article does not give too much weight to fringe science, then your preferred version is okay; however, if the RfC says it does give too much weight, you can continue making more edits? --Jagz (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the question so that editors are also if the article is too critical. So, either way, we'll get an answer.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of a pov cabal on the 'fringy-ness' of an article is pointless. Without proper sources stating that mainstream science considers the research junk/fringe science the edit cannot stay. --Zero g (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a factual basis for the alleged "fringy-ness" in the first place? --Jagz (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask, because I've already supplied sources twice: here and here. Now, either read them through, or if you can't be bothered, please stop disrupting the talk page with your uncivil comments.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All I found at the links you provided above was dead links. --Jagz (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Funny, they work for me. [45][46] You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe your excuse at all. Or maybe you just don't have an Adobe Reader installed?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a policy of not excusing people who call me a liar. --Jagz (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The first link is from bioethics scholar Paul A. Lombardo. Not exactly an authoritative source when it comes to the scientific mainstream opinion. He also doesn't make a compelling argument. He shows that the pioneer fund primarily sponsors eugenic and racial research (nothing new there), but doesn't disprove the actual science carried out by pioneer fundees. He claims the science is bad and ideology driven, which doesn't warrant stating such as a fact as the article does currently. It should be stated as an opinion in a criticism section in the article. --Zero g (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved user. Wikipedia emphatically does have to cover biological topics thoroughly. The article should explain clearly how this term is used by biologists, if it is. If it is only used by some researchers in the social sciences, or if some researchers in the social sciences use it in a particular sense, then that should be made clear. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Above, Wobble (Alun), notes that "'Population Genetics: A Concise Guide' by John H. Gillespie doesn't mention dysgenics a single time." "The History and Geography of Human Genes", a reference cited by population genetics, includes no mention of dysgenics in the index, nor are works authored by Vining, Lynn, or Van Court referenced (Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza: The History and Geography of Human Genes: (Abridged paperback edition) Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691029059). I wonder what other titles, one might consult to investigate the use of the term in the biological sciences? The journals "Intelligence" and "Social Biology" appear to both publish papers on sociology, despite the use of the word "biology" in the title of the latter. The editors of "Social Biology" are "Tim Heaton, Department of Sociology, Brigham Young University, Ken R. Smith, Professor of Human Development & Family Studies, The University of Utah". Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate the biological meaning of dysgenics a year ago, but it was reverted by Wsiegmund or maybe one of the other guys that was on his pov team back then. The pov at the time was that dysgenics wasn't a scientific term, hence they tried to remove all references to the term. If I recall correctly the validity of dysgenics as used in biology was 'heavily disputed' or something. --Zero g (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the term used was obsolete.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at some abstracts of recent papers in biology. I found that "dysgenic" is used regularly, but "dysgenics" isn't. "Dysgenic" seems to be used in two senses: 1) the result of genetic damage, e.g. "dysgenic cell" 2) tending towards a negative effect on the gene pool, e.g. "tree-cutting strategies having a dysgenic effect on the forest". 1) is more frequent. My conclusion is that WP should have an article on "dysgenic" as a biological concept, while "dysgenics" is simply the opposite of "eugenics" so that "dysgenics" should be a redirect to eugenics. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CABAL. "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Something interesting about dysgenics

In the same vein as Wobble's search, I looked up the definition of dysgenics. Here is what MS Encarta has to say about it (emphasis mine):

study of deterioration over generations: the study of factors relating to or causing a decrease in the survival of the genetically well-adapted members of a line of descent

Now, it seems a bit silly to then discuss differential birth rates especially when those of "lower intelligence" actually have more offspring, therefore, according to the very definition of dysgenics, have more chances of having surviving offspring. I believe this just goes to show that this whole article is skewed.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice argument, but original research. Various sources on dysgenics disagree. --Zero g (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This abstract (by the author) is from a recent article:

"In the period before the onset of demographic transition from large to small families, when fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, Malthusian pressure gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals whose characteristics were positively correlated with child quality and hence higher IQ, increasing in such a way the frequency of underlying genes in the population. As the fraction of individuals of higher quality increased, technological progress intensified. Positive feedback between technological progress and the level of education reinforced the growth process, setting the stage for an industrial revolution that facilitated an endogenous take-off from the Malthusian trap. The population density rose and with it social and political friction, especially important at the top of the social pyramid. Thus, from a certain turning point of history, the well-to-do have fewer children than the poor. Once the economic environment improves sufficiently, the evolutionary pressure weakens, and on the basis of spreading egalitarian ideology and general suffrage the quantity of people gains dominance over quality. At present, we have already reached the phase of global human capital deterioration as the necessary prerequisite for a global collapse by which the overpopulated earth will probably decimate those of mediocre IQ." ["The Population Cycle Drives Human History -- from a Eugenic Phase into a Dysgenic Phase and Eventual Collapse", Volkmar Weiss, Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, Fall 2007, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p327-358]

--Jagz (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to take seriously a work that cites Patrick Buchanan, a journalist and former US presidential candidate, as an authority on fertility. "It is not only the industrialized countries of Europe and Asia, but also the white populations of North America, Australia and South Africa, that have for decades been falling short of the magical number of 2.0 offspring per woman (Buchanan, 2002).[47] Later, the author says, "If we assume that man was enabled by hundreds of thousands of years of the evolution of his brain to think logically, to be imaginative and creative, even to work scientifically (Mokyr, 2005), in order to improve the natural conditions of his life in several large steps (Boserup, 1981); and that this had the consequence — in particular after the step of industrialization — of his excessive (in the 20th Century, even explosive) propagation; then such a development from the point of view of the maltreated earth must be seen as an error that has to be corrected. The earth is weary of the many humans and has the task, in order to protect itself against contamination, climatic change and exploitation of all its resources, to destroy the majority of humans within a short period. This will happen in the Great Chaos." This strikes me as teleological speculation, not serious scholarship. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "In the period before the onset of demographic transition from large to small families, when fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, Malthusian pressure gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals whose characteristics were positively correlated with child quality and hence higher IQ, increasing in such a way the frequency of underlying genes in the population.

I've read some gibberish in my time, but this makes no sense. If the claim is that the children of wealthy people were more likely to survive than the children of poor people, then this may be true. But what has this got to do with genes? The children of the wealthy were more likely to survive not because they had better genes, but because they had better nutrition and care. One selective pressure on children before the advent of modern medicine would of course have been the survival of serious life threatening illness, the children of the wealthy were no more likely to survive than the children of the poor due to "intelligence", nor due to medicine, as it was incompetent for all. As for the claim that fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, is there any reason to accept this? In Victorian/Edwardian times it was poor families that had huge numbers of children and not rich families. But the point is not fertility is it? Fertility is a red herring, a person can sire a hundred children and be very fertile, but if all of these children die in infancy, then they have not contributed to the gene pool at all. One of my grandmothers had eleven siblings, and the other had nine siblings, this was common in late Victorian/Edwardian times, but neither of these women came from wealthy families, certainly in the west this was the period of greatest population growth and the largest family sizes. Put it like this, the children of wealthy people were more likely to survive because they have better nutrition (an environmental factor), which will give them a better chance of surviving life threatening illness. The fact that relatively speaking the children of wealthy people are more likely to survive to adulthood therefore has little to do with "intelligence". On the other hand this does not show that more children from wealthy families overall survived, only that a greater proportion survived, poor people have always produced more offspring than rich people, therefore although the infant mortality rate may be higher due to a poorer ability to fight childhood illness, they are likely to overall produce more children because more are born, one needs to take a look at relative survival rates into adulthood as well as relative birth rates. But no one knows what the relative differential birth rates was between wealth and poor people in the past. What is the evidence that either (a) wealthy people were more "intelligent" in the past or (b) that they produced more children that survived into adulthood. Survival to adulthood in the past had nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with luck. If selection occurred then it is likely to be the selection of those individuals with better immune systems and not those with greater "intelligence". Still the quote made me laugh because it was obviously written by someone who is completely incompetent to make claims about natural selection. How can anyone with any real intelligence swallow this guff? Are people rally so gullible? Alun (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"the quantity of people gains dominance over quality". What a chilling statement. Since when do human beings come in different qualities? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comes from the determinist philosophy that people aren't born equal. The privileged (in money, in intelligence) are deemed to be of "better quality". "Dysgenics", according to some editors here, is the study of how these privileged will be overcome by the great unwashed masses, leading to the "dumbing down" of humanity and the eventual collapse of civilization. (heavy sarcasm) --Ramdrake (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite, it's pure right wing ideology and nothing to do with science. How is science supposed to measure the "quality" of human beings? Any "qualitative" criterion must be subjective. It is absurd to claim that humans can determine the environmental "fitness" of a group, only nature can do this by natural selection, and natural selection will always be dependent upon environment. It's reminiscent of Michael Young's book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", a dystopian view of the future where social worth was decided by an arbitrary measure. Alun (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How about making this article into a start-class article about lethal (and other deleterious) mutations in organisms, such as Alun suggested, and move much of the rest over to Eugenics, which at least makes it clear it's not about biological science, but about a social philisophy?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The biological aspect could be covered in an existing article too. --Jagz (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun and Ramdrake's ideas are good - just go ahead and make the changes. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators can issue such edicts? --Jagz (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)"

? --Jagz (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)