Talk:Fertility and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Removed material[edit]

"Robert Klark Graham argued that genocide and class warfare, in particular discussing the examples of the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, have had a dysgenic effect through the killing of the more intelligent by the less intelligent, and "might well incline humanity toward a more primitive, more brutish level of evolutionary achievement."[1]"

"But Meisenberg (2009) found that both GDP and intelligence independently reduces fertility. Liberal democracy had only a weak and inconsistent effect. Furthermore, "At present rates of fertility and mortality and in the absence of changes within countries, the average IQ of the young world population would decline by 1.34 points per decade and the average per capita income would decline by 0.79% per year."

This has been changed to the misleading "Meisenberg (2009) found that both log of per capita GDP and intelligence were negatively associated with fertility. Liberal democracy had only a weak and inconsistent relationship.".

I propose adding back the lost material.

References
  1. ^ Graham RK (Fall 1998). "Devolution by revolution: Selective genocide ensuing from the French and Russian revolutions". Mankind Quarterly 39 (11): 71–93. 

Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. We should not be limiting the information we provide to readers. - TRN450 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trn450 (talkcontribs) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Tournesol.png

Impressive job WeijiBaikeBianji! Thank you! Lova Falk talk 08:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

Weiji removed a paragraph based on the argument that the source was unreliable due to being a research paper. At present the article is sourced predominantly to such sources, so there is no reason to remove just the one and removing them all would gut the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Every editor can see that I have recommended a large variety of reliable sources in the continually updated source list on intelligence mentioned in the previous section of this talk page. It would be delightful to see more Wikipedians use sources to improve the 4,590,559 articles on Wikipedia as well as possible to uphold the core Wikipedia policy of verifiability.
The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources. (It should go without saying that an article about fertility and intelligence is inherently an article that makes medical claims.) Those guidelines remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The medical sourcing guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
So it's clear enough that if we are to do a good job of improving this article through good sourcing, we should be looking for sources such as "literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies," and I am familiar with several of those. I'll recommend some specific sources along those lines for this article, and I invite all other editors here to consider source criteria carefully in deciding how to improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Here are some citations to articles on the subject recommended to me in November by a medical geneticist and a professional demography researcher who both participate in a "journal club" I also participate in.
*Gottesman, I. I.; Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1971). "Prologue: A Foundation for Informed Eugenics". Social Biology 18 (Supplement): S1–S8. PMID 5125947. 
*Reed, Sheldon C. (1979). "A short history of human genetics in the USA". American Journal of Medical Genetics 3 (3): 282–295. doi:10.1002/ajmg.1320030308. ISSN 0148-7299. PMID 384792. 
*Andersson, Gunnar; Rønsen, Marit; Knudsen, Lisbeth; Lappegård, Trude; Neyer, Gerda; Skrede, Kari; Teschner, Kathrin; Vikat, Andres (3 April 2009). "Cohort Fertility Patterns in the Nordic Countries". Demographic Research (Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research) 20: 313–352. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2009.20.14. ISSN 1435-9871. Retrieved 1 January 2014. 
Both of the review articles point out conceptual errors that are common in studies of fertility and IQ, and the primary research article exemplifies the kind of mediating variables the more careful researchers look for, and the kind of surprising observations one finds when looking at the best ascertained data sets. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that the article should rely on secondary sources more than it does presently and agree that we should use the strongest and most representative sourcing when possible, I have to object to the notion that this article would be covered under WP:MEDRS. No medical claims are made in the article, which is what MEDRS concerns. That such a field has possible implications for medical research is not sufficient to argue for the application of MEDRS. Reputable academic journals focusing on this field are often not medical journals and excluding non-medical journals would be detrimental to a comprehensive treatment of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of text[edit]

Weji removed the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fertility_and_intelligence&oldid=prev&diff=622879624

Please reinstate. KVDP (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the reliable secondary sources already cited here on this talk page, in the section posted just before this talk page section. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)