Talk:Race and intelligence

Archives
Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 25, 26, 27 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
Topics Race and intelligence references Discussions pertaining to haplotypes and haplogroups Discussion pertaining to planning and organization

Please place new messages at bottom of page.

Comments on sentences in "Contemporary issues" section

Here are some comments I have:
In recent years, the belief that there are no biological causes for "race" differences in intelligence or potential has been challenged by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton and defended by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin and Joseph L. Graves.

• Having "race" in quotes in unncessary as the word is already in the name of the article. The article name is not "Race" and intelligence.
  
• "Biological causes" is improper because intelligence is a biological phenomenon. The human brain is not a rock or pile of sawdust for example.

Those claiming biological differences are the cause of "race" differences in "intelligence" also claim that, in light of the slight but definite effect that racial origins have on physical traits like medical risk factors and athletic abilities, there is no reason to suppose that such effects do not extend to mental traits.

• "Those claiming" is improper because it can refer to more people than those mentioned in the previous sentence and is therefore an over-generalization not supported by the citations and is also probably incorrect.

Whereas Joseph L. Graves argues that differences in athletic performance and medical outcomes between so called "races" are likely to have an environmental origin.

• Is Joseph Graves a significant player in the race and intelligence debate?
  --Jagz (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

biological is tricky. As brains process information they neccesarily have several levels of analysis. Mind versus brain is an issue even if we fully accept that the mind is a product of the brain. In this discussion the difference is whether a cognitive difference is matched by a long-term structural difference in the brain (eg London cabbies having an enlarged hippocampus {I think}) or not (eg I know who Barry Hall is and you don't but that doesn't mean I've now got a swollen BarryHallKnowing bit in my brain that you don't have). Environmental differences between individuals may or may not be difference that can be identified biologically (eg by autopsy or fmri) but genetic differences must entail actual differences in either how the brain is structured or in how it develops. Computer analogies can be misleading - but consider the software hardware distinction. Nick Connolly (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on edited sentence

The sentences discussed above were edited and the remaining sentence is shown below. I have further comments:
In recent years, the claim that there are genetic causes for differences in averages of I.Q. scores between different races has been forwarded by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton, whose research has been criticized by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin and Joseph L. Graves.

• The statement regarding Charles Murray may be wrong for the following reason:
  

In the The Bell Curve, the authors Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, were reported throughout the popular press as arguing that "IQ differences are genetic, although they state no position on the issue in the book, and write in the introduction to Chapter 13 that 'The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved'."

• The phrase, "whose research has been criticized by other scholars such as", is not wholly supported by the linked Wikipedia articles and there are no citations provided. It needs to be rewritten to avoid over-generalization.
• Maybe the whole sentence should be deleted as it has been edited to the point where it is no longer particularly useful. --Jagz (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence makes its point rather clearly and does not seem worth arguing about. Mathsci (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you have restored the sentence. What exactly do you mean by discussion? Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I should refactor this: you placed a "dubious" tag on the sentence. Mathsci (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are also by now aware that at least three editors favour this sentence, so please stop reverting. I do not quite understand your objection to the sentence, despite your text above. Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss this with an administrator prior to proceeding. --Jagz (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an attempt to have a mediator for this page fairly recently? Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for now putting your comments in bold. However, I would also be most grateful if you could please answer my question about mediation. I have added three references to Gould, Lewontin and Graves. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also discussed it with MRG. I do not at all understand why you were so concerned by this neutral sentence. Is there some problem with the way in which WP describes fringe science? Mathsci (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see you, Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, Alun/Wobble, and others make a serious effort in editing the "Genetic hypothesis" section of the article as discussed in the below section, and do it using Wikipedia quality standards so that we have something concrete to discuss. In regards to the sentence, references/citations have to back up statements in Wikipedia. Personal knowledge or just throwing in any citation doesn't cut it. It's not fair to throw in unsupported sentences and then when I object, infer that it is because I am biased and engaging in POV-pushing; that is just playing games. Now, can we continue to discuss the sentence below? --Jagz (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the article, not the editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good observation Ramdrake, now let's proceed with discussing the disputed sentence. --Jagz (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that User:Mathsci has provided references for all three critics of the hereditarian position, do you still object to the sentence? While Murray and Hernstein may have said in Chapter 13 of their book that they left the debate open, at least for Murray (the surviving co-author) subsequent interviews have rather clearly put him in the hereditarian camp. If you still object, please state your remaining objections.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dudes - WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Jagz (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again to make the sentence more accurate. How is this?:
In recent years, the claim that there is a genetic cause for the differences in the average of IQ scores of races has been advanced by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton, however, this genetic hypothesis has been criticized by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin and Joseph L. Graves.
However, for example, the linked article for Murray needs to be modified or a citation added to show that his works specifically advocated the genetic hypothesis and not just that he expressed a belief in it in an interview. --Jagz (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC) WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Jagz (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"In recent years" is wp:weasel wording and exhibits a temporal POV. Better to say "From 1998 to 2004" or just lose it. The phrase "by such scholars as" might be justified if references as cited that call them scholars, but it contributes little to the meaning beyond "by". Consider instead Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton's position, that there are genetic causes for differences in averages of I.Q. test scores between different races has been criticized by others, such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin and Joseph L. Graves.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have noted my reservation on Murray above. I think it is important to include some type of temporal reference because we are trying to give a brief indication of what has been happening since The Bell Curve came out in 1994 to the present. It is better to say that Gould, Levin, Lewontin, and Graves are criticizing the genetic hypothesis or something like that instead of them criticizing Murray, Levin, and Rushton's postition because it would be more difficult to support that with citations. We would need to add citations showing that they all criticized all of the others' positions. It would be much easier to show that they criticized the genetic hypothesis for example. --Jagz (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is incomplete. Gould, Levin, Lewontin and Graves have levelled specific objections to the research paradigms and methods of Rushton and Lynn, for example. So, yes they do object to the genetic hypothesis, but they also question the scientific methodology used by the proponents of the genetic hypothesis to prop up their theory. --Ramdrake (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about this:

In recent years, the genetic hypothesis, which theorizes that there are genetic causes for the differences in the average IQ scores of races, has been supported by the works of scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton; however, their scientific methodologies and the genetic hypothesis itself has been criticized by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin , and Joseph L. Graves. --Jagz (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Jagz (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about this:
In recent years, the genetic hypothesis, which theorizes that there are genetic causes for the differences in the average IQ scores of races, has been supported by the works of scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton; however, their scientific methodologies and the genetic hypothesis itself has been criticized by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin , and Joseph L. Graves. --Jagz (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your formulations just say exactly what the current section says, just in a far less legible manner. I say we stick with the original formulation. Also, there are still several issues with your formulation; for example, how much support the works of Rushton, etc. really give to the hypothesis, which is a matter of controversy (many say that if the science was done properly, it wouldn't support their position).--Ramdrake (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about this:
In recent years, the claim that there are genetic causes for differences in averages of I.Q. scores between different races has been forwarded by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton, whose research has been criticized by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin and Joseph L. Graves. -- Slrubenstein | Talk 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My point, exactly.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems very clearly and accurately put. Mathsci (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please reword "between different races" because it employs redundant wording. Also, it would be better if you could be more specific than "whose research has been criticized"; use more specific wording than just "research". As stated earlier, I'm not sure Murray specifically advocated the genetic hypothesis in his works, although his works may have supported the genetic hypothesis indirectly. Please also add a sentence that shows that some scholars have rejected or criticized the genetic hypothesis. Also, the references must specifically support your statements and not just in an indirect or cursory manner. --Jagz (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... um, okay, so how about this:
In recent years, the claim that there are genetic causes for differences in averages of I.Q. scores between different races has been forwarded by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton, whose research has been criticized by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin and Joseph L. Graves. -- Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please reword "between different races" because it employs redundant wording. Also, it would be better if you could be more specific than "whose research has been criticized"; use more specific wording than just "research". As stated earlier, I'm not sure Murray specifically advocated the genetic hypothesis in his works, although his works may have supported the genetic hypothesis indirectly. Please also add a sentence that shows that some scholars have rejected or criticized the genetic hypothesis. Also, the references must specifically support your statements and not just in an indirect or cursory manner. --Jagz (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I have come up with, it is dfinitely the best version: In recent years, the claim that there are genetic causes for differences in averages of I.Q. scores between different races has been forwarded by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton, whose research has been criticized by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin and Joseph L. Graves. -- Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, here's my analysis:

• Redundancy: granted, you have a point.
• Research: the entire research on the subject of these researchers is eing put into question: their methodology, their motives, their theory, their analysis of the data, etc. The only way to list it off without making this tedious or specious is just to say "research".
• Murray does support the genetic hypothesis, regardless of whether or not he admits it. Re-read the Bell Curve and it should be clear enough.
• Rejection of the genetic hypothesis: ok, maybe you got another point.
• Someone has already supplied specific references for the statement. I don't see that anything is missing.

Thus, you'd get:

In recent years, the claim that there are genetic causes for differences in averages of I.Q. scores between different races has been forwarded by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton, whose research has been criticized and rejected by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin, Richard Lewontin and Joseph L. Graves.

In addition to the references already existing in the article. Now, can we please stop obfuscating and dancing around words and get to properly rewriting the article in a neutral fashion? Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I give in. I admit it: Ramdrake's version is much better than mine. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was presented much more diplomatically. --Jagz (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, please comment on content, not on editors. Jagz, it would be nice if you kept such quips to yourself in the future.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, you shouldn't make comments like this solely to those you view as the opposition. --Jagz (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are disrupting the talk page with your off-topic comments. Please cease and desist.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz seems to be filibustering. The inclusion or not of "different" before races is a completely trivial point that does not deserve any kind of prolonged discussion. Please stop disrupting this page, Jagz, unless you have a point to make with some intellectual content. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is not particularly informative and I'm not sure that the references can back up the statement that all the claimants were criticized by all the others. It is a poor standalone paragraph. --Jagz (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add a sentence that shows that some scholars have rejected or criticized the genetic hypothesis. --Jagz (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Making progress on the article

Since Slrubenstein's proposal to content-fork the article has not taken off, what can we do to make progress on the article? I have read the RfC comments. I would like the editors to list here clearly what we can do to make progress on the article. --Jagz (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were community banned from editing this article, that might help. Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any other suggestions? --Jagz (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jagz, since you ask, yes I have a suggestion for you. In future you should not remove other editors' comments on administrators' talk pages and that you should try to resist escalating meaningless content disputes of your own creation into futile wikidramas. And that you do not remove my edits to this page like this one:

Jagz seems to be filibustering. The inclusion or not of "different" before races is a completely trivial point that does not deserve any kind of prolonged discussion. Please stop disrupting this page, Jagz, unless you have a point to make with some intellectual content. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour seems disruptive. You have insulted and misrepresented editors here and elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked and your sentence is still there. The discussion on that sentence is over so I'm not sure why you put the comment there in the first place. --Jagz (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not "my sentence". Please try to make remarks accurately on this talk page, if that's possible. Remember: DYB, DYB, DYB, DOB, DOB, DOB. Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is not your sentence, then whose is it? I am assuming good faith. --Jagz (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Go and look at the history page, Jagz. Not one word is due to me. Please stop behaving like a WP:TROLL. Mathsci (talk)

I really, really have no idea what you are talking about. Your comments are getting disturbing. --Jagz (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're still edit-warring about the section, aren't you?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Slrubenstein's proposal to content-fork the article has not taken off, what can we do to make progress on the article? I have read the RfC comments. I would like the editors to list here clearly what we can do to make progress on the article. --Jagz (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Jagz (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But this is exactly what you are now doing by posting exactly the same message twice. I can see why for example this section could be regarded as trolling, since you pointedly shunned mediation-related discussions earlier in the month. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop placing your off topic comments in this section. You can discuss on my Talk page if you want. --Jagz (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All you have done in this section is twice slurred the name of Slrubenstein. Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the way to make progress on the article is to present the belief that the genetic hypothesis is fringe as a POV and the belief that the genetic hypothesis is not fringe as another POV. --Jagz (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, that would be equivalent to putting the hereditarian hypothesis on the same footing as mainstream science. That's already been rejected all around.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That contention seems to be POV. --Jagz (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As the article stands now, I don't believe there is any merit to the idea of content-forking the article. I suggest those willing concentrate on improving the existing article. --Jagz (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Topics for Request for Comment

I am considering doing another Request for Comment on more specific issues, perhaps related to the neutrality issue. Does anyone have suggestions on issues for a RfC. --Jagz (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes: about your disruptive behaviour. Having another RfC regarding the neutrality of the article is forum-shopping, pure and simple. You've already been warned several times against doing that.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it will be soliciting outside advice on specifics of how best to fix the neutrality issue. You are definitely not assuming good faith by allegations of forum-shopping. --Jagz (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not the only one who warned you against this. User:Cailil warned you when you tried to take the same issue to the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. I still think you should be soliciting feedback on your own behaviour.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cailil was not assuming good faith either as my intention was to improve the article with more specific information. The disruptions caused me to abandon it. --Jagz (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would second an RfC on User:Jagz. At present a WP:SPA, he is is deliberately disrupting the project, here and elsewhere. His "forum shopping" - misrepresenting other editors like Slrubenstein at the drop of a hat (or a woggle) - seems to be unacceptable behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, your behavior here on the Talk page is getting outrageous. --Jagz (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And you think yours isn't? Telling people to "go to bed without dinner", inserting the same POINTy retort four times, asking the same question of different people over and over, just to try to get a different answer? In all fairness, I have to say this: as an editor, you need to grow up.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell us what your contributions to the article and not the Talk page have been since it was unlocked on February 1. --Jagz (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not germane to the subject of this thread.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then put it on your Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is still interest in content-forking the article and feel that there has not been a consensus reached on doing so, you should consider a RfC as the next step. --Jagz (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, stay calm. You neither own this talk page nor the article. Your statements above contravene the very essence of WP. You are an WP:SPA editor trying to push a non-mainstream point of view. You are trolling here and being disruptive in several other parts of the WP. Your actions at present are inexcusable. Please think very carefully before misrepresenting how WP is edited as you have just done. The fact that you have lurked on this page for a significant period of time gives you no special rights, in fact rather the contrary. You are one of the very worst editors I have seen on this page, apart from other banned WP:POV pushers User:Fourdee and User:MoritzB, both with rather nasty private agendas. Mathsci (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then please stop pushing the POV that the genetic hypothesis is fringe. --Jagz (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, excellent idea, Yes I think Jagz has been warned plenty!! Great idea, having another RfC! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not going to do an RfC on content-forking, then please stop trolling the article. I noted your post here: [1] --Jagz (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What precisely about that post did you note Jagz? I have warned you for a) assumption of bad faith b) forum shopping and attempting to ask the other parent and c) for disrupting the project ([2][3][4]. You are continuing to behave in this manner - even after being warned - and have created a poisonous atmosphere on this page. I already explained to you specifically that "asking the other parent" is incompatible with site policy. I will also remind you that you closed a RfC here a matter of weeks ago[5]. Informing me that this issue is still on-going was proper.

Jagz, your above comments to Ramdrake, Mathsci and Slrubenstein are out of line with site policies on usage of talk space, site etiquette and the civility requirements of wikipedia - please review site policy on these matters. All in all I have to agree that a User RfC for Jagz would be appropriate.

Also Jagz, your comment about me above is inaccurate if there is a problem with my bahviour ask a sysop to review it. You called attention to yourself by making the FTN post all I had to to do was read this page in order to see that there was consensus, that there was an RFC and that you were "asking the other parent"--Cailil ^talk 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your allegations of forum shopping are assuming bad faith. Trying to get more information is not forum shopping. Slrubenstein, Mathsci, and Ramdrake have made virtually no contributions to the article since it was unlocked on February 1. In fact, they are disrupting progress. I have made many edits. As you can see in the above sections, I have bent over backward trying to help the article along and encouraging them to engage in editing the article while putting up with their disruptive and rude comments. They are refusing to cooperate with improving the article, apparently because they want to content-fork the article. They have apparently not gained consensus for content-forking the article so I have suggested they do an RfC on content-forking since content-forking is apparently the only thing that will appease them. I think I'm being demonized because I have not supported their (Slrubenstein's) content-forking idea. --Jagz (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No Jagz I'm no alleging anything. You attempted to use FTN to circumvent consensus by "asking the other parent" and have tried to open an RfC to do same. This not an allegation, this is evidential fact. If you think my behaviour is incorrect please ask a sysop to review it.

This project is founded upon collaborative and consensus based editing. Everyone must abide by consensus even if one disagrees with that consensus - in this case your position has not achieved consensus but you just aren't hearing it. This type of behaviour is disruptive. As pointed out by Mathschi you don't own the page.

Your above comment about the other users is, once again, uncivil and inappropriate - please do not call the kettle black. This is now your second warning in a matter of minutes - please review site etiquette--Cailil ^talk 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I tried to use FTN to get more information on what others consider to be fringe in the article. Additionally, I didn't try to open another RfC, I only discussed it. Also, I reserve the right to open another RfC to get additional information unless you can provide me with some policy that says I can't. --Jagz (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The information has already been provided on this talk page, often more than once. By asking again, you are only proving either 1)you don't understand it or 2)you're not willing to trust the information provided by the other editors or 3)you haven't understood or don't trust the outside input provided so far by the two RfCs you generated or 4)any combination of the above. I believe asking the same or a similar question again (about the neutrality of the article, or what is fringe in the article - both of which are intimately related questions) would be a willful breach of asking the other parent again and would certainly constitute disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which could get you blocked. Again: you have thoroughly exhausted the community's patience. Pushing it further will not help you.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you were warned several times as to what constitutes forum-shopping. After a number of warnings, if you still are violating this principle, then you are the one acting in bad faith. Second, there was a consensus here about what to do with the article, which you managed to trash with your incivil remarks, edit-warring and generally insulting all editors around. You have NOT bent over backwards to try to accomodate other editors: otherwise, you would not have edit-warred, blind revert after blind revert. You also failed to mention that, while every editor on this article was willing to go to mediation, you single-handedly made mediation abort by your refusal to mediate. Also, all the above points to a systematic misrepresentation of the facts, trying to whitewash your actions and to demonize those of the editors you are in conflict with. Your behaviour is unbecoming of a Wikipedian, and pretty much is against everything that Wikipedia stands for.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew from mediation before it started for personal reasons but was not trying to abort the process. I was hoping that it would continue. --Jagz (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, you've been here long enough to know that if even one party refuses mediation, mediation is automatically aborted. It even says so on the mediation page. So, please, no more lame excuses.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. --Jagz (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you'll stop the futile complaining?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it alright to call someone a 'borg' rather than a 'troll' ? --Zero g (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Personal reasons"? I fear that Jagz might now be misrepresenting himself. He's had plenty of time to make his excuses or apologies for his absence during the mediation discussion. There is no evidence anywhere on WP that he made the slightest attempt to do so. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we reading the same talk page Cailil? The only person who is consistently rude and uncivil is Slrubenstein. --Zero g (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, Zero g, as another WP:SPA, you might try to be a little more careful. Slrubenstein has not removed comments from other people's talk pages or gone forum shopping or trolled. Jagz is trolling here and I do not think he now requires help in this. In your case I would be interested to know why, after an absence of one year on WP, you are back again only to edit WP articles related to the discredited theories of a small coterie of WP:FRINGE scholars? Is it due to a renewed subscription for American Renaissance? Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually at a KKK reunion when a fellow hate monger expressed his annoyance with people incorrectly using the abbreviation WP, and how someone should put that straight. --Zero g (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Mathsci should limit his editing to the articles on mathematics, France, and Jerry Lewis. --Jagz (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

American Renaissance publishes videos by Lynn and Rushton, presumably with their consent. I wonder whether you could explain that? Mathsci (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an abuse of the notion of WP:FRINGE. There are many notable points of view. Hunt and Carlson offer one enumeration of the range of opinions:

The investigation of racial differences in intelligence is probably the most controversial topic in the study of individual differences. Contemporary proponents can be found for each of the following positions:

a. There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function (Rushton, 1995; Rushton & Jensen, 2005a). b. Differences in cognitive competencies between races exist and are of social origin (Ogbu, 2002; Sowell, 2005). c. Differences in test scores that are used to argue for differences in intelligence between races represent the inappropriate use of tests in different groups (Ogbu, 2002; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005).

d. There is no such thing as race; it is a term motivated by social concerns and not a scientific concept (Fish, 2004; Smedley & Smedley, 2005). [6]

I can't see how it's possible that any of those four views can be considered fringe by the technical description given at the policy page. The volume of scholarly literature on and about those views is just enormous. Time would be better spent making sure all of them are well explained in the article. --Legalleft (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Legalleft, there are some interesting reviews which to my mind demonstrate that hypothesis a) is in fact fringe. Here are but just a few links:

• Lieberman's very good paper from 2001, including about a dozen commentaries,
• Cernovsky's very interesting criticism of intelligence research,
• Gray and Thompson' Neurobiology of Intelligence
• interesting criticism of the Pioneer Fund-related research,
• more of the same.

I can dig up more if you wish, but I believe the above should demonstrate my point.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Those articles suggest the opposite in a variety of ways. Foremost by their very discussion of (a) they make it a noteworthy issue. Secondly, sources like Thompson and Gray's review suggest a research paradigm to investigate (a) versus (b) -- meaning that they take both very seriously. The review I cited does the same. As do all those papers that argue (b-d) are right and (a) is wrong. Sowell and Flynn come to mind as two famous examples of scholars that support (b) and that actively argue that (a) is wrong but worth considering. Those theories have been a topic of scholarly discussion for 30 years -- so I really think it's a misuse of the term "fringe" in the WP:FRINGE sense. This seems like a clear cut issue to me. To be somewhat silly -- if a prosecutor brought (a) to trial on the charge of WP:FRINGE the judge would dismiss the case. --Legalleft (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Try comparing with these definitions: fringe science and junk science. Also, you seem under the impression that scientifically marginal (fringe) subject lack noteworthiness. That isn't necessarily so. There are many examples of noteworthy, but fringe scientific subjects.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if you quit imposing your "fringe" POV beliefs on everyone else. --209.155.81.130 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are not my beliefs. Just read the references I mentioned above and you'll see this position is shared by mainstream researchers.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then quit imposing their POV beliefs on everyone else. --209.155.81.130 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a number of scientists reject something as junk science does not mean it is thereby noteworthy enough to be in an article on the topic. The article on Evolution does not have content on the views of Intelligent Design - not "despite" the fact that people like Dawkins and Gould have criticized it, but because they and other scientists have criticized it. Similarly, the weight of scientific views against racist science does not make racist noteworthy of inclusion in this article, it makes it fringe science. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

SLR, not sure, but methinks you are feeding a troll.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, regarding your above comment, your logic is baseless and twisted. You and Ramdrake are both engaged in pushing POV beliefs. --Jagz (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake : "under the impression that scientifically marginal (fringe) subject lack noteworthiness" -- I wrote "There seems to be an abuse of the notion of WP:FRINGE." in response to "discredited theories of a small coterie of WP:FRINGE scholars" and similar uses. If what's implied is fringe science rather than WP:FRINGE, then my particular point doesn't apply. But perhaps you can see where I was coming from.

SLR : The comparison to evolution is off by many orders of magnitude. There are zero surviving peer reviewed articles in support of intelligent design, formerly n=1. The citation counts behind each of the 4 theories Hunt and Carlson outline are prima facie equivalent, and many orders of magnitude greater than 1. By that and many other metrics the situations are not comparable. Flynn doesn't say Jensen isn't doing science, he say his interpretations are wrong. Sowell doesn't say Jensen is racist, rather he says he's more ethical than some of his critics.

All: this back and forth name calling is hardly constructive. --Legalleft (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the genetic hypothesis has neither been proven nor disproven. Maybe junk science has been used to try to prove it but if so that does not disprove it. --Jagz (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Filling in your ethnicity on an IQ test and Performance

Studies showed that BLACK Kids who had to tick a box describing their ethnicity before they started an IQ test, did siginificantly worse on the test than BLACK kids who didnt have to tick a box describng their IQ before they started an IQ test.

So reminding them of their ethnicity before the test, meant they performed worse (lack of confidence/anxiety) and had lower Iq's.

Also, Black kids have an IQ of 97 and white kids and IQ of 101, surely the prejudices aqquired over the life of a black person and the poor education and social deprivation would further decrease his/her IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.150.5 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add your references. --Jagz (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the above is well-known and described under Stereotype threat.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What happens when non-Asians tick the East Asian box before starting the IQ test? --Jagz (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on how to present the genetic hypothesis in the article

I will do an RfC on how best to present the genetic hypothesis in the article. If you have any comments on how best to frame the RfC discussion, please list them below. --Jagz (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

At best, it should be a small section, even a footnote. It is fringe science, even junk science. Your obstinate refusal to heed other editorss viewpoints on this issue is becoming a breach of WP:POINT.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going ahead with it. You can add your POV to the RfC. My question above was about how best to frame the RfC discussion (the statements that will be the basis for the RfC discussion). --Jagz (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, I have this advice, taken from WP:PARENT: Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus — so in the new discussion section, provide a summary and links to any previous discussions about the issue on the articles talk page, or talk page archives, to help editors new to the issue read the reasons behind the consensus so that they can make an informed decision about changing the consensus. This means all the major arguments so far (on both sides) need to be represented in the new RfC, as this whole subject has been dealt with before, and there was indeed consensus, if not unanimity on the subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else? --Jagz (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very hard/technical question for a general contributor to answer. You'll need to give background. Probably easiest to get feedback by presenting alternatives and asking people to weigh in on why they would pick which alt. I also want to re-voice my disagreement with Ramdrake's opinion that the genetic hypothesis warrants "At best, it should be a small section, even a footnote." per the reasons I give in the section above. I would also point out that Nick appeared to have disagreed as well, as he wrote "I think [slrubinstein] and I still disagree on the extent to which the core article is an article about a controversy in the popular media around some fringe views (I think Slrubenstein's position) or whether it is on a hypothesis (most closely associated with Arthur Jensen) which wasn't fringe but which has largely been debunked and which was associated with a popular controversy". --Legalleft (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After being involved in this article for several months, the evidence does not seem to support Ramdrake's opinion. --Jagz (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, the previous two requests for comment (which you initiated) seem to bear out my position: way too much space is given to a very minor position.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else? --Jagz (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT --Jagz (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else? --Jagz (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

citation describing criticism of Lynn and Rushton

In a previous thread, Nick and I both appeared to be familiar with the same argument against Lynn/Rushton's ice-age hypotheses. Here's a recent citation which describes that criticism:

It could be asked why cold is a stronger environmental challenge than drought or alternations of droughts and rainy seasons in areas such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and Middle America. One response might be the necessity and possibility of keeping supplies which is enabled by foresight (see the German proverb ‘Denk daran, schaff Vorrat an’. ‘Think of it, stock up on’.). Predictable and cognitively solvable environmental challenges could stimulate evolutionary cognitive development; diseases like malaria were not part of cognitively solvable environmental challenges in pre-modern times. Examples like differences in lactose intolerance show the ongoing process of evolution and the important differences in genes between groups.

Rindermann. Eur. J. Pers. 21: 767–787 (2007) [7] --Legalleft (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing the European Journal of Personality is not a genetics or evolutionary biology journal, and Ringermann is not a geneticist or physical anthropologist. Students of human evolution would certainly agree that "Predictable and cognitively solvable environmental challenges could stimulate evolutionary cognitive development" but this is precisely one of the arguments for the evolution of H. sapiens and the cognitive developments that resulted from this are found in human beings living in all niches.Be that as it may, the second half of the paragraph does not follow from the first half. What, by the way, is the scientific basis for the claim that cold is a stronger environmental challenge than drought, by the way? (Just to be clear, I am NOT knocking Inuit intelligence!) Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all an attempt to explain the ecological correlation between contemporary average IQ scores (and other test scores) of indigenous groups and (a) the latitude at which they are found, (b) mean temperature of that location, and (c) their average skin color -- understood as an adaptation to climate. Colder climates/lighter skin is associated with higher IQ. A fifth variable in that matrix is brain size. Interestingly, a recent paper reported that a variant which DOESN'T account for differences in IQ does cause differences in brain size. I'd be willing to wager that the brain size differences are directly related to the climatic variables (per Beals), but that IQ differences are only indirectly related. BTW - the bulk of the article has little to do with this section, which was addressing causal hypotheses. --Legalleft (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

in re Caste-like minorities

Odd, but I happen to be in an uper-caste (according to the chart), yet I find this crap to be offensive. The presentation gives way too much weight to fringe bullshit. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment but think you could have worded it in a more civil manner. You have previously used the word bullshit on this Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:CIV - "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as, personally-targeted... etc." That wasn't personally targeted, so the civility policy is inapplicable. On the other hand, the point raised by Jim62sch is probably worth responding to in some way. Antelan^talk 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe my comment was just a truckload of dog turds. --Jagz (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not American, but I'll take the Fifth on this one!--Ramdrake (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else believe the Caste-like minorities table in the article to be offensive? --Jagz (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would make more sense to me to just summarize: the groups that the author of that book considers to be of "low caste" also tend to do worse than the "high caste" groups. The "castes" themselves need not be listed. Antelan^talk 20:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion. A few key example, such as examples that are often cited, could be listed in paragraph form. --Legalleft (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

survey of experts - 2008

of some note: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007

At first glance, such discrepant views may give the impression that experts remain deeply divided over almost all aspects of the science of mental abilities. However, given the longevity and volume of research in the science of mental abilities, it is likely that there are areas of scientific consensus. We believe the appearance of controversy regarding a number of issues is driven by two factors. First, given the volume and increasing technical sophistication of the empirical literature, we admit it can be quite difficult for even research scientists to determine where scientific consensus has been achieved and which propositions and hypotheses are still legitimately in question. Second, the highly visible non-scientific commentaries (e.g., Gould, 1996; Murdoch, 2007) continue to give the impression that the field is in disarray. Indeed, such a sentiment was expressed by Reeve and Hakel (2002) who stated, “… scientific research on intelligence has often met with fierce public opposition. Even within the scientific community, the debate is often sidetracked by misunderstandings and misconceptions. The same questions are asked repeatedly, false claims and criticisms are based on misconstrued or misunderstood evidence, and important questions remain ignored. This wastes the resources, time, and energy of partisans, scientists, and the public.” (p. 69).

...Though some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. The areas for which we found evidence of continued controversy appear to deal with what might be considered more detailed questions rather than core or fundamental questions. For instance, there appears to be lack of consensus regarding the degree to which specific abilities contribute meaningful variance above g, and as to the exact breadth of the g-nexus. These are important issues to be sure, but they are not the type of issues that call into question the fundamental importance of cognitive ability, or the validity and utility of ability tests in general.

... it would appear that questions regarding the nature of race differences in intelligence, and the implications of adverse impact, are still in need of additional research. It should be kept in mind that investigating views on the nature of race differences was not the focus of the survey; as such, there were only a few general items relating to this issue. Clearly this issue is complex and multifaceted; we caution readers from making strong inferences on the basis of these few items. Nonetheless, a global evaluation of the results does suggest a few general trends. For example, there appears to be some consensus (but not unanimity) among experts that professionally developed tests are not biased against minority groups. At the same time, there are clearly some unresolved issues. Two items in particular (items 39 and 43) which deal with the nature of racial differences reveal polarized opinions. Thus, although this will undoubtedly continue to be a highly politicized and polarized line of inquiry, these results suggest that additional research is needed to better understand this phenomenon.

Two points to take away from that.

(1) Non-expert claims about what is and is not established cannot be trusted. Even individual expert claims require some skepticism on the part of editors -- and require full attribution and citation. Thus, crucially, naked claims by editors to know the extent to which a particular positions is supported by expert opinion are not a reliable basis for article construction. Such claims are themselves subject to expert disagreement.

(2) Surveys of expert opinion such as this one and earlier ones such as Snyderman and Rothman's, as well as multiauthor statements such as the APA report and the Mainstream statement paint a picture of general agreement about the basics of intelligence research, the reality of differences in cognitive ability between racial-ethnic groups, and the disagreement between experts about the causes of those differences. That latter point is important -- if there was agreement that a genetic explanation was nonsense it would show up in these surveys. Thus claims that the hereditarian hypothesis is WP:FRINGE or even fringe science cannot be taken as obvious and if presented would require attribution and citation. --Legalleft (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found that trying to discuss this subject is like trying to change someone's mind about whether God does or does not exist. You might want to just go ahead and start making some edits to the article. --Jagz (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Legalleft, I do not agree because you are mixing apples and oranges. Psychologists do research on intelligence tests and what those tests measure and yes, I would grant authority to statements by the APA as to what constitutes mainstream science on intelligence and the way it is tested. But psychologists are not geneticists and typically do not have any training in genetics (or even evolutionary theory) and do not conduct research in genetics. The APA cannot therefore judge mainstream science in genetics any more than it can in physics or astronomy. There are of course trained geneticists who have their own professional organizations and I would take their statements about mainstream science concerning genetics as reliable. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I understand your argument, and if the situation were different I believe that reasoning would be sound, but I believe the particulars of this situation weaken your point considerably. Rather than trying to expand on that, I'm going to keep hacking at the article, and hope that the point that I was making comes across in that way. --Legalleft (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back Legalleft's edits

I rolled back Legalleft's edits, as I felt these were adding undue weight to the genetic hypothesis, and started again quoting Rushton and Jensen pretty much everywhere, and I believe there is consensus against that. I woul invite Legalleft to reintroduce his edits one by one so they can be properly discussed on the talk page as necessary.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Here are some of my specific concerns:

• Not sure why Encarta cannot be cited, as it is a WP:RS
• Personnally, no major objection to the Singer quote.
• The section on tests comes across as trying to attack environmental effects and defend genetic effects. Also, the test for X effect section seems a bit superfluous.
• The section on chronometric measures goes into too much detail and seems too speculative.

In a nutshell, these are the problems I see with these edits.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By point:

• Citing the primary authors words, in this case, the words which sparked the entire debate seems like an improvement. Also, citing another encyclopedia just isn't good form; especially in this case where hundreds of other scholarly citations are possible to get the point across. Either editor-written prose should be used or a direct quote -- no need to quote another copyrighted encyclopedia. Given that it is often argued that Jensen's position was misunderstood, a direct quote seem preferable in this case.
• Great, I think it adds much needed context.
• Those are the arguments made which are offered to support the genetic hypothesis. If you understand the argument, Jensen et al argue for a genetic contribution by showing the insufficiency of environmental factors. You'll find I made extensive use of antagonistic sources as citations -- this is how Flynn, Jencks & Phillips, Loehlin (writing in Sternberg's book), and others describe the arguments.
• The chronometric measures are considered by several third parties to be the most important evidence because they come from outside psychometrics. They have been debated since the early nineties. The reason why Jensen is cited so much is that he's done so much of the research -- Jensen (1993) for the first chronometric paper, iirc.

In general:

You should restore my edits and work to improve them. Jensen's 1969 argument rests on two pillars -- a theoretical one based on heritability and an empirical one looking at putative environmental effects. I choose the most representative and highly cited examples of these empirical tests by looking at how Jensen's academic adversaries describe them. A topic is given undue weight when it receives more prominence than it deserves. I think its best to leave it up to experts, like the ones I cited, as to what's the proper weight to give these results. The metrics you used -- tends to support the genetic hypothesis and mentions Jensen -- makes no sense as a criteria for judging individual facts. Of course some facts support the genetic hypothesis, that's why there's a debate at all. Citing Jensen is just good form because he's the most prominent person with the view and has written several reviews covering all of this.

Put some elbow grease in and improve the text as I've tried to do. We're getting closer to the point where an average reader might be able to understand this article. --Legalleft (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Factor x:

Do you mean that it isn't explained well? If you think the common-factor / factor-X debate isn't important, then we have far bigger issues because that entire section is built around explaining that distinction, and how realizing it changes the expectation of what the environmental causes should look like. It essentially explains why the Flynn effect is such a big deal. --Legalleft (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jensen has no argument based on heritability. He is not a trained geneticist which may explain why he uses the word in a way that could not even be called a fringe theory among geneticists - he simply uses the word to mean something it does not mean in genetics. It would be like my calling my girlfriend "borderline" because she is almost a communist but not quite there. Sure, i can use the word however I want, but this way I am using it simply has nothing to do with psychiatry. Similarly, Jensen can use the word "heritability" anyway he wants, but the way he uses it has nothing to do with genetics. I have never seen a geneticist say otherwise. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SLR -- Jensen has no argument based on heritability. -- Your claim is mistaken at two levels. I suppose I should have addressed this in the section above rather than delaying. First level - this isn't molecular genetics. It's behavioral/quantitative genetics. The truth is actually the opposite of your claim -- a molecular geneticist has no expertise in heritability estimation. Behavioral/quantitative genetics was actually invented in part to study IQ. Jensen not only is an expert in behavioral/quantitative genetics but he was developed some of the mathematical methods used, and has published extensive on it. Many psychometricans are also behavioral/quantitative geneticists -- Wendy Johnson comes to mind. Second -- Jensen very much does base his argument on heritability. Massive amounts of text have been dedicated to examining this argument in the scholarly literature. The argument has, IMO, now been described very clearly in the article. Whether his argument is correct or not is a matter of POVs, which we should be able to manage. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned that the expanded section on hypothesis testing violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, at least, as it presents the genetic hypothesis on equal footing with the environmental hypothesis; actually, it even goes so far as advocating the genetic hypothesis. The previous round of RfCs, I believe made it clear that the consensus was that the genetic hypothesis was the position of a very small minority, even a fringe position. Slrubenstein also has a point that the hypothesis is championed by psychologists who, if they may be experts on intelligence are in no way experts on race or on genetics. Lastly as an accessory point, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is purported twice to support the genetic hypothesis. This is purely Ruston et al.'s reinterpretation, as the original authors originally said (and repeated in the follow-up to nthe study) that the results supported the environmental hypothesis rather than the genetic hypothesis.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, let's take this step by step. I think your points are logically valid but happen to be factually incorrect. Let me outline just a few. (1) SLR is wrong for the reasons I gave above. (2) Uninformed editors opinions about how common a scientific view is are essentially meaningless for us. If we simply wrote things by majority vote of editors, then Stephen Colbert's jokes about wikipedia would be true. The notion that the topic isn't worth discussing is itself a disputed POV (e.g. Turkheimer versus Flynn), and should be described as such in the article. Nick and I both seem to agree that you can't make sense of this topic if you simply leave out the genetic hypothesis. And Nick specifically disagrees with SLR on this point. Taking the position that material in the article should only support on POV is clearly an WP:NPOV problem. -- To spell that out more clearly. Consider that 52 professors signed a statement that the genetic factors might contribute to BW IQ differences and not long after a panel of 11 experts said there wasn't much [direct] evidence for that view. Who's side do you take? NPOV says we skirt the issue by describing the range of views. (3) Rushton and Jensen actually played no role in the MTRAS debate except to comment on it after the fact in their 2005 review. You'll notice that I included a description of the various interpretations of the data. You're free to refactor and rewrite as you choose, but MTRAS is a big deal for this topic. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also regarding Factor X - what it is and what it stands for isn't explained anywhere in the article, so a section on factor X actually is detrimental to the legibility of the article by non-experts. This article was going in the right direction yesterday by shortening or identifying some of the overlong sections, but this latest round of edits adds back cumbersomeness in the article; worse it reads as positively advocating the genetic hypothesis, a direct violation of WP:FRINGE for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Read this section: [8]. Please feel free to reorganize the sections for readability, but the common-factor / factor-X distinction is the key theoretical notion that launched Jensen and Flynn's debate, the Flynn effect, etc. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Legalleft, I do not see where I ever wrote "molecular genetics." I just wrote "genetics." And I was never refering to molecular genetics. If we limit ourselves to population genetics and its mathematical modles everything I say holds. jenson misuses "heritability" like many people misuse the words depression and split personality. The word exists and it has a clear meaning in genetics. jenson was not trained in this field and gets the term wrong. He is not expert on genetics or heritaiblity and his claims about them are as pseudosciency as claims that a professor of comparative literature may make about personality disorders. just because you have a PhD. in one field does not mean you are an expert in another field. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're just wrong. If you don't trust my word, consult Neven Sesardic (Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, No. 4 (2000), pp. 580-602). Holding and describing that POV is fine, but enforcing it as a matter of policy is not. --Legalleft (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, "In 1970 Jensen was a founding member of the Behavior Genetics Association. He has served as a consulting editor to both Intelligence and Behavior Genetics..." - from Miele's biography of Jensen. --Legalleft (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I m right. Sesardic is a philosopher, not a geneticist. I know of no evidence that his views are given any weight by geneticists. I think heis another example of someone with a PhD in a field other than genetics who wishes to pass judgement on genetics. in fact, his argument is as confused as Jensen's: according to him, Jenson suggests two kinds of heritability, that which explains WGD and that which explains BGD; moreover, the evidence for the BGD heritability is WGD heritability plus "other empirical factors." The problemn is there are not two different kinds of heritability, only one. If anything, Sesardic supports my claim, which is that heritability does not apply to BGD. Sesardic goes to pains to point out that Jenson supports his claims that genetics explains BGD because of "other empirical evidence." Heritability thus has nohing to do with it, it is simply not germaine, the question is, what is this "other empirical evidence" and Jensen has never convinced any geneticist that his evidence demonstrates that BGD are explained by genetics.

All the Sesardic (apparently a friend or colleague of Jensen's) really proves is my point that people without phDs in genetics should tread caefully when making claims about genetics. Funny, if a comparative literature professor makes claims about the power of Freud for explaining human behavior, psychologists react that people in literature do not understand pscyhology. Yet psychologists (and in this case a philosopher) seem to have no qualms about making bald claims about fields in which they have no training. that is pretty crappy science! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the Behavioral Genetics Society, I wonder what standing it has among geneticists? The editorial board of the journal is almost all psychologists. I mean, really, if they wanted to be geneticists, why didn't they go to grad school and get phDs in genetics? Or, if they believe in interdisciplinary research, why don't they team up with geneticists, leave the psychometrics to the psychologists and the genetics to the geneticists? Isn't that how interdisciplinary research is supposed to work? I find it rather funny, a bunch of people who claim to be doing research in genetics while disregarding the views of people with PhDs in genetics.

But maybe it is time to go to the article on Psychology and start quoting Leo Bersani and Jonathan Culler on the centrality of Freud! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another point, I could found a society called "The Union of Responsible Psychologists", and get every academic who agrees with me to join, but that wouldn't make me an expert in psychology. What is the standing of the "Behavioural Genetics Society" amongst geneticists? I not there is only a single result for a google search for "Behavioural Genetics Society".[9] Setting up one's own society to promote one's own work and point of view does not make that society relevant to the wider academic community. A search for Behavioural Genetics Society produces 257,000 results.[10] Alun (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand we do have the Behavioural Genetics Association, which does seem to be a proper professional body. There's also the BEHAVIORAL GENETICS RESOURCES site, which does not mention the "Behavioural Genetics Society" at all. Alun (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote, not what SLR misreported. -- "In 1970 Jensen was a founding member of the Behavior Genetics Association. He has served as a consulting editor to both Intelligence and Behavior Genetics..." - from Miele's biography of Jensen. --Legalleft (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC) --Legalleft (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, do you feel that your background in anthropology makes you an expert on the subject matter of this article and Jensen's qualifications? --Jagz (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What does your background make you? How does being a cub scout (or whatever you are) make you an expert in genetics or psychology? Thought I'd ask as you have several times complained about other's qualifications, while at the same time apparently having zero academic qualifications (relevant or otherwise) whatsoever. Alun (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was in the Scouts years ago but that is changing the subject. Do you feel that Slrubenstein's background in anthropology makes him an expert on the subject matter of this article and Jensen's qualifications? --Jagz (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not changing the subject, you actually seem to know something about being a boy scout, but you appear to know nothing about psychology or genetics. What is your expertise in the fields of genetics or psychology? Why should we accept anything you have claimed here? If you want others to justify themselves then why can't you justify yourself? Alun (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz seems to completely miss my point, or distort it - typical of his trollish behavior. I never claim to speak with expertise as a geneticist. All I have been arguing is that psychologists cannot speak with authority about genetics either. My only argument is that mainstream views about genetics come from geneticists. As to why I understand the concept of heritability better than many psychologists, the answer is that American anthropology comprises cultural anthropology, physical anthropology, archeology and linguistics. Although my own research is in cultural anthropology, as an undergraduate and graduate student I needed to take courses in physical anthropology. These covered the Darwin, Mendel, and the modern synthesis/evolutionary theory; primate behavior (including ethology and behavioral ecology); population genetics; paleoanthropology (human evolution based on the fossil record). The first two years that I taught anthropology to undergraduates, I taught four-field introductory anthropology. This means that in addition to teaching cultural anthropology at a graduate and undergraduate level, at a first year undergraduate level I had to teach the theory of evolution; the location of human beings in the phylogenetic taxonomy (including the differences between plattyrhini and catarrhyini, the differences between cercopithecidea and hominidae, and the differences between genus homo and other apes); human evolution; and basic population genetics (e,g, Hardy-Weinberg; clinal variation; drift; heritability). I wouldn't teach this stuff at a higher level - I can't tell the difference between jaws from H,. habilus and H. erectus and have not followed the debates concerning H. ergaster and H. rudolfensis, for example. But I understand the basic concepts and can have an intelligent conversation with my physical anthropologist colleagues, whether they specialize in primate behavior, paleoanthropology, or population genetics. And i appreciate the amount of training and research one must do in order to become a geneticist. That is why I would not make original claims about genetics, and am skeptical of original claims about genetics made by psychologists, especially when what they say contradicts (or is refuted by) actual geneticists.

I have never - never - claimed to be an expert in genetics, and I defy jagz to locate one sentence where I ever made such a claim. As with the usual ignorant and disruptive BS he spews, I am sure he will ignore this challenge. But the fact remains I have never claimed expertise in genetics. All I have argued is that claims about genetics and what constitutes mainstream genetics, fringe theories within genetics, and pseudoscience parading as genetics, should come from experts in genetics. I am curious to see how Jagz will change the topic this time, in order to continue disrupting this article and pushing his racist agenda. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT --Jagz (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that properly summarized, the objections here are that the field of "race and intelligence", especially in regards to the genetic hypothesis, needs to summarize the views of experts in all three fields: anthropology (for race), psychometrics (for intelligence measurements) and genetics (specifically for the genetics hypothesis). I think it would be a logical fallacy to posit as an expert on the overall question anyone not trained in all three disciplines. Since these people would be rare (if they in fact exist), while Jensen's (for example) opinion may be valid in intelligence measurements, I don't think his ideas as to how to define "race", or on the population genetics aspect of his work. What we are lacking here is the opinion of population geneticists and anthropologists on the question. Without it, the article is hopelessly lopsided, not unlike having creationists define what phylogeny is.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need to differentiate between the genetic hypothesis itself and the belief that the genetic hypothesis is true. I think there may be some confusion here. A belief in the viability of the genetic hypothesis and the belief that it plays a role are two different things. --Jagz (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A belief in something that doesn't play a role in anything is useless, no? Especially in science. A hypothesis must exist to explain something - to have a role; if it doesn't explain anything, then it serves no purpose.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Belief as shown here: [11]. The "researchers who believe that there is no significant genetic contribution to race differences in intelligence", however, are not necessarily rejecting the hypothesis. They believe that it is not significant or perhaps they are not convinced; this can be different than completely rejecting the hypothesis. --Jagz (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He is trolling, again, Ramdrake - don't feed him. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is actually someone who is trolling the article, it has been going on for years, and it is not me. --Jagz (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE does not apply to a description of the genetic hypothesis. WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints. --Jagz (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The genetic hypothesis is a viewpoint, therefore WP:UNDUE applies. What next, WP:UNDUE doesn't apply to creationism???--Ramdrake (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The genetic hypothesis is a hypothesis. Here is the definition of a hypothesis from the Encarta dictionary: "theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation", for example, "The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe."

A viewpoint is defined as: "point of view: a personal perspective from which somebody considers something"

Are you contemplating adding creationism to this article? --Jagz (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to understand the "scientific method" by reading one possibly inappropriate definition from an online dictionary. Please try to find a sensible source, such as a recognized academic text. A hypothesis is not necessarily a theory. In mathematics this is not the case; it is quite unlikely that an online dictionary would explain this point. However, it would be explained in many introductory textbooks on mathematics. I would expect therefore that the correct place to look is in the relevant academic literature, if you have access to it. Mathsci (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some additional definitions of hypothesis: [12]. Some additional definitions of viewpoint are here: [13]. The genetic hypothesis and a genetic viewpoint are not the same thing. --Jagz (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion must necessarily use recognized scientific sources. Dictionary definitions have absolutely no relevance; playing with definitions of single words is an unscientific semantic game. Surely an encyclopedia article must reflect what scientists are actually doing (in sourced articles and learned journals). Do you in fact have access to such learned journals or texts? As an example of the use of recognized sources in writing WP articles, I edited an article on a Bach Cantata using the definitive reference book by Alfred Dürr plus a full urtext score that I own (formerly freely available on the web). Isn't it important to identify a comprehensive set of proper sources before editing a WP article? In this case it involves trawling through the scientific literature as Slrubenstein has suggested many, many times. Online dictionaries are not particularly useful for writing WP articles. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think there is a "genetic hypothesis" at all. I think there is an hypothesis that the observed difference in IQ between people identifying as "black" and people identifying as "non-black" in the USA is partially explained by genetic differences (indeed I think Rushton and Jensen modelled a 50% genetic and 50% environmental contribution). I also think that this hypothesis rests on a belief in the existence of actual "genes" that specifically contribute to IQ, as opposed to genes that may be pleiotropic and confer a higher intelligence by chance, for example. So the claim is not for a "genetic hypothesis", the claim is for a partially genetic explanation for the observed differences. Jagz has demonstrated again and again that he doesn't even understand the basics of this, he keeps making claims that no scientist has ever claimed, and he keeps citing unreliable sources such as newspapers. There is no such thing as a "genetic hypothesis" and to claim there is just highlights your ignorance. Alun (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Biomedicine

Could User:Jagz please explain his unsourced sentence on biomedicine and why he twice attempted to add the same citation from an opinion piece in the Guardian making no mention of biomedicine? In this case it looked as if he was just reporting unsourced hearsay. Surely WP is concerned with reporting the current state of recorded human knowledge, with carefully sourced references, not the privately held beliefs of individual editors? Biomedicine seems to be completely unrelated to the current article. What is going on here? Mathsci (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, he is just a troll - just revert his silly or policy non-compliant edits. WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather be a troll than an asshole. --Jagz (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)