Talk:Race and intelligence

Additional archives
Archive index (last updated June 2006)
Race and intelligence references Discussions pertaining to haplotypes and haplogroups Discussion pertaining to planning and organization

Please place new messages at bottom of page.

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)

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) [1] --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: [2]. 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".[3] 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.[4] 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)

• Here is the article link of Behavior Genetics Association, whose journal is Behavior Genetics. Here is the article link of Intelligence (journal). --Jagz (talk) 00:50, 9 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: [5]. 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: [6]. Some additional definitions of viewpoint are here: [7]. 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)

"Genetic hypothesis": [8]. "Hereditarian hypothesis": [9] --Jagz (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC) --Jagz (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OR. Besides, there is hardly anything but blogs and op-ed pieces in the first few pages of each search - oh yeah, and some Wikipedia references to this article, which of course don't count.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more. "Genetic hypotheis": [10]. "Hereditarian hypothesis": [11] --Jagz (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And more. "Genetic hypothesis": [12]. "Hereditarian hypothesis": [13]. --Jagz (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Since you insist, let's just look at the last link you give in detail:

• The Race Bomb: Skin Color, Prejudice, and Intelligence - Page 152 by Paul R. Ehrlich, S. Shirley Feldman - Psychology - 1978 ... offspring of interracial marriages tell us anything about innate intelligence and race? ... there is no evidence to support the hereditarian hypothesis. .
• Race and Racism: An Introduction - Page 118 by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban - Social Science - 2006 - 278 pages Making a "science" of human intelligence, Galton created the first tests of ...now to the hereditarian hypothesis that race, social class, and intelligence ...
• The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen - Page 169 by Arthur Robert Jensen, Helmuth Nyborg - Psychology - 2003 - 669 pages These findings are consistent with the default hereditarian hypothesis. ...theories of race differences make diametrically opposite predictions. ...
• Destructive Trends In Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm by Rogers H. Wright, Nicholas A. Cummings - Psychology - 2005 - 346 pages What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? ... Should we do research on race differences in intelligence? Intelligence, 16(1), 1-4. ...
• Race, Change, and Urban Society - Page 47 by Peter Orleans, William Russell Ellis - Social Science - 1971 - 640 pages ... deliberately contentious essay upholding the hereditarian hypothesis, ...analogy between intelligence and electricity, writing that intelligence, ...
• Heredity & Environment by A. H. Halsey - Psychology - 1977 - 337 pages Page 11 One can have little confidence in the sociological knowledge about race of a man who ... And we can say on the evidence that the hereditarian hypothesis is ...
• Sex and Destiny: The Politics of Human Fertility - Page 310 by Germaine Greer - Social Science - 1985 - 541 pages... up in the scale of intelligence hereditary weakness to the level of hereditary strength. ... was to prove the truth of the hereditarian hypothesis. ...
• Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development by Stella Chess, Alexander Thomas - Psychology - 1968 - 562 pages Page 214 Eysenck deals much more adequately with the concept of race, and places the hereditarian ... to support an hereditarian hypothesis regarding IQ differences, ...
• The Black and White of Rejections for Military Service: A Study of ...by American Teachers Association, Martin David Jenkins - African Americans - 1944 - 51 pages Page 33 Nor are we unaware of the hereditarian hypothesis, advanced by Thorndike and others, ... and rejections for low "intelligence" in the several states. ...
• Journal of Intergroup Relations by National Association of Intergroup Relations Officials, National Association of Human Rights Workers - United States - 1965 Page 23 ... hereditarian analysis of group differences in measured intelligence, ... for controversy that has made Jensen's hereditarian hypothesis one of the most ...
• Federal Aid for Education: Hearings Before the Committee on Education and ... - Page 347 by United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Education and Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, United States Office of Education, United States, Senate, Congress - Education and state - 1945 Nor are we unaware of the hereditarian hypothesis, advanced by Thorndike and ...opportunities and rejections for low intelligence in the several States. ...
• IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea by Stephen Murdoch - Psychology - 2007 - 288 pages

That's all. Dates 1978, 2003, 2006, 2003, 2005, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1968, 1944, 1965, 1945, 2007. Germaine Greer? User:Jagz, you really must try harder. Please try to find convincing sources using an academic database. Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT --Jagz (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Is this an admission that you are quite unable to support your arguments and that they are in fact false? If that is the case, we can revert any edits you make on this topic. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, I believe he's resorted to calling a WP:troll anyone who disagrees with him. On the downside, it's very uncivil and a definite personal attack under the circumstances. On the upside (for him), it saves him from having to take a good, hard look at his actions. Actually, I believe this applies to him.

(I quote - from the "Big, Giant Dick section")

1. BGD: Start calling people "NAZIS!!!" (In this case, "trolls")
2. BGD: Reverting 100 times a day against your opponents in an edit war.
3. BGD: Begin sourcing extensively, using reliable fonts of knowledge such as Wikipedia Review, Vanguard News Network, and Uncyclopedia as references. (Or in this case, Google)
4. Starting a single-purpose account to push your particular point-of-view, while carefully adhering to all Wikipedia policies and making a few token edits to other article to muddy the issue.
5. Engage in highly offensive vandalism (...) and make sure to blank the warnings on your Talk page so that your pattern of vandalism goes unnoticed for months. (In this case, warning for incivility and revert warring).--Ramdrake (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[14] --Jagz (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice, I'll assume this is a picture of you?--Ramdrake (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. --Jagz (talk) 18:03, 10 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)

The sentence and its reference came from an earlier version of the article. I added the sentence back once after fixing the reference link. The second time I added two additional references, one of which used the term biomedicine and the other was referenced in the original reference. --Jagz (talk) 18:12, 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)

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:3)--Ramdrake (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of using foul language, could User:Jagz please answer my questions? Mathsci (talk)

Mathsci, as a courtesy to the rest of us, could you provide a difflink instead of the pronoun this? It would save us all trying to read between the lines.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found it difficult accessing the history of the main page. Here is User:Jagz's original edit [15]. It was subsequently removed on 3 occasions firstly by User:Wobble, then by me and most recently by User:Jim62sch. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article essentially complete

The article now is essentially complete with some sections needing cleanup. I think this is as good as the article is going to get under the current circumstances. --Jagz (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. For the record, I strongly disagree.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Then good luck to you in making it better.--Jagz (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is unbalanced. This will continue to be the case while it contains the suggestion that, because certain scientifically unsupported views have been pushed in the popular arena, they are valid alternatives to scientific scholarship. There seem to have been continual attempts to make it look as if this fringe point of view has been accepted by the establishment, contrary to what can be gleaned from mainstream academic literature. I also do not understand why User:Jagz has started treating this talk page as a blog. Please could he stop this? He does not own the article. While practically every change he makes is being reverted, it does not seem reasonable to say that the process of editing is complete. Of course the article could be locked again if his edit warring continues ... and then we could all pretend that editing had finished. Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Today for example an anonymous IP tried to remove an important phrase stating that the debate is in the popular arena and not among mainstream scientists. Again this seems to be an attempt to give the misleading impression that a certain point of view is taken seriously by the academic establishment. The public statement by the American Anthropological Association was not an opinion piece in a daily newspaper and was correctly cited. (BTW Tenniel's illustration is from Alice through the Looking Glass, not Alice in Wonderland :) ) Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase needs more citations than just one from the American Anthropological Association. It claims scholarly circles, that is plural. --Jagz (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And an association with over 10,000 scholarly members isn't plural enough?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A circle (singular) is a group of people who share a common interest, profession, activity, or social background. --Jagz (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence to take into account your objection.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, as another indication that the article might not be complete, this report [16] on ASPM and the evolution of the human brain together with one of its responses [17] might be relevant. It has been discussed in a fairly balanced way in the Independent. [18] Two of the scientists involved in the papers, Bruce Lahn and Pardis Sabeti, have WP profiles. This subject matter appears to be within the topic of Race and Intelligence, although the findings so far seem inconclusive. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz you're contradicting yourself. In one sentence you claim it's "complete", and in the very next you're saying it's "as good as it'll get under the current circumstances". These are mutually exclusive statements. It can only ever be "complete" when it is as good as it is ever going to get under any circumstances. Alun (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I said "essentially" complete. Maybe it has a different meaning in UK. --Jagz (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz, please try to express yourself more clearly. "Essentially" means the same either side of the Atlantic. You think it is complete, but have not said why. It seems to be a personal opinion not so far shared by anybody else. I don't think you can set the rhythm for editing in this article nor can you preclude the addition of new material, because of the very nature of WP. What exactly did you mean? Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[From what he says, User:Jagz is about to disappear from these pages ...] Mathsci (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, stop being a Slrubenstein. --Jagz (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)