Talk:Race and intelligence

I find issue with the statement "and individuals of each group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum." at the introduction.

This just looks like hogwash. The asian american IQ bell curve is far more to the right than the african american IQ bell curve, meaning that at some points on the IQ spectrum, notably at the much higher IQ ranges, there will be virtually no african americans but still a statistically significant amount of asian americans. I believe this inaccurate statement should be removed or replaced. RhymeNero (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that what 'you believe' is of any relevance to Wikipedia article content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it is false information. It is indeed not a belief. Can you provide me with a reliable source that specifically states that all races are represented on all points of the IQ spectrum? RhymeNero (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Because 'race' isn't a meaningful biological concept when referring to Homo sapiens. However, I'd recommend a little study of statistics too. Even if it were true (which it isn't) 'virtually no', isn't incompatible with 'individuals of each group'. If this is false information, provide a source that says so. Or troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's not a "meaningful biological concept", then the article has no purpose at all. Then why are you even editing this page? You can recommend the article for deletion, if you feel so strongly. 221.120.115.125 (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That race isn't a meaningful biological concept are your personal opinions, and yours only; not scientific assessments. And I'm sure there are IQ points where there are no african americans at all, virtual or real. I've done courses in statistics so don't lecture me on them. The fact is, race is no different to what we see in breeds of dog. Evolutionary pressures have pushed humans in different geographic locations to develop differently, both physically and mentally. There are enough differences between humans of these different locations to be taxonomically worthy. RhymeNero (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'fact is' you don't have a clue what you are talking about. We don't give a toss about your ignorant and bigoted opinions on subjects you know nothing about (which seems to include statistics too. Since when is what you think you are 'sure of' a valid statistical measure?). Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, not the ignorant ramblings of those who can't even be bothered to actually research the subjects they are commenting on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to take such a dogmatic stand needs first to re-read the second sentence of the article - "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia." With such uncertainty, no claim such as RhymeNero's can be made with any confidence at all. (In my view that sentence makes this whole article a candidate for deletion on the basis that it's bigoted, speculative nonsense, but I haven't won that argument yet.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Then ANY article involving race has also the same uncertainty. By your logic then, any article about race would be deleted.221.120.115.125 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You see what people like me have to put up with? Bigoted fools like Andy who spit in your face and hurl abuse when presented with valid sensible hypotheses. So for other animals sub species can exist but somehow this mythical human race transcends species sub divisions? Humans are animals just like the rest and we have human sub species that given enough time would have diverted into fully different species themselves. That's what happened with us and the chimpanzees and us with the Neanderthals. And if you cannot accept that, the bigoted fools are you two. The only reason sensible views such as mine aren't mainstream is because of political correctness. If you think politics is a good enough reason to censor scientific research then you don't deserve to be editing wikipedia articles right now. RhymeNero (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. This isn't a platform for you to spout ignorance from... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And neither is this one for your ignorance. It is clear that your beliefs stem from your politics and there is no effort of neutrality on your part. You're just an angry little leftist liberal who's all for freedom of speech until it offends your sad little opinions. You have a weak mind. That is all. RhymeNero (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TP for how to indent replies, and WP:TPG for the purpose of this page (hint: it's not a forum for expressing personal opinions, and particularly not a place to settle scores). Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"And I'm sure there are IQ points where there are no african americans at all, virtual or real." Except that Philip Emeagwali, IQ of 190, is quite African, although not from America. I am afraid the mathematics of the bell curve are quite against you on this one. Besides, racial standard deviation, not racial mean, will determine the number of high IQ individuals. Rip-Saw (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Claims of Philip Emeagwali's assorted achievements are dubious B.B. (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

inconclusive studies

i just noticed that a lot of the subsections in the "genetic arguments"-chapter speak about either low correlations or inconclusive results. i don't see the point of providing that much space to such studies. totally undue. why not summarize and merge into a single section?-- altetendekrabbe  19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of those studies are indeed not very informative, but the fact is that reliable sources devote a lot of space to these few studies, which means that they should be discussed here at some length, too.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

sure they should be discussed but they are really taking a lot of space, rendering the page difficult and frustrating to read. you read a whole section... and you find out it's nothing really there.-- altetendekrabbe  21:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. The fact that there are arguments put forward and given prominent coverage, but that studies have failed to produce significant or substantial evidence for them, is in itself a significant fact. It is missing the point to say "it's nothing really there". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

American Anthropological Association statement in the intro

This statement has multiple problems. It supports a minority point of view when there is nothing to balance with the majority viewpoint. Also, the AAA has not, as far as I have seen (correct me if I'm mistaken) done anything else to do with this debate, so surely a statement by them is less necessary, especial in the intro, then that by even 1 actually involved person like James Flynn or Richard Lynn? 110.32.146.96 (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The AAA with its 11,000 members is one of the biggest professional organizations of scholars and practitioners in the field of anthropology. I believe that whenever they release an official statement it supports a majority point of view within the field. FonsScientiae (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

But the question of R&I is not anthropology. Why? The question is whether the gap is genetic or not, and since race is genetic, the question is about whether the intelligence gap is genetic, making the debate psychological. Since we're on the topic, perhaps the survey should be mentioned in the intro. 110.32.155.210 (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The AAA is a crypto-political propaganda organization controlled by Marxist Jews for the last 100 years. They are liars and frauds. 119.196.38.20 (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Assumption in the lead

Currently we lead with: "The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in..."

Given two major points of the "controversy" are the use of "race" (Is that a sub-species or just skin-color?) and "intelligence" (Did you mean IQ, g or other?): Why are stating that there is a connection between these undefined concepts in the first line? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that's what reliable sources say. "Race and intelligence" is the rubric under which this topic is discussed in most sources. For example, in their article called "Race and intelligence" in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (2011), Daley and Onwuegbuzie begin by saying that "The debate over racial differences in intelligence remains one of the most hotly contested issues in the social sciences today", and then attempt to contest the meaningfulness of the two concepts. In the same book, Earl Hunt writes that "We now come to what is possibly the most explosive topic in psychology -- the discussion of racial/ethnic differences in intelligence", and goes on to discuss both hereditarian and environmental theories of race differences in a balanced way. Racial differences in intelligence is how this topic is framed in reliable sources, regardless of how the two concepts are defined by different researchers. This article should reflect this fact.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that we are supporting the framing used by scientific racists, such as Hunt, as correct per the lead. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You may think that everybody who does not accept your views is a "scientific racist", but that's neither here nor there. Moreover, as I pointed out above, those who argue against hereditarian explanations of racial differences also use the same framing. It's not a "scientific racist" framing but simply a scientific one.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

The fact that this article uses race as an explanation to the different levels of intelligence is a racist act. Moreover, all the "warning signs" in the opening of the article is another prove for the many problems in this article. Therefore, I believe this article is not appropriate and should be deleted.(ScottyNolan (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

Cry me a river. There is a vast academic literature on this topic, easily fulfilling the standards of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. See also WP:NOTCENSORED.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that this article fulfills the requirements for those three guidelines. You should review them. They're there for a reason, for situations such as this one. Lighthead...KILLS!! 06:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP is completely right. The second sentence of the article begins "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia..." To have such a large article based on such uncertainty is just bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Universal means everyone on the planet agrees with it. As in, even people that are uneducated and cannot do basic fractions much less understand bulletproof mathematics and statistics based arguments serving as the foundation for the concept of IQ. If anything, the statement about it not being universal is irrelevant. It's like saying 2+2=4 is not universally accepted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.28.166 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Many article subjects have no universally accepted definition, e.g. Race (human classification), Intelligence, Art and Kindness. That is no reason to delete an article.Sjö (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a reason to delete any part of the text that is written as if there is a universally accepted definition. That would leave very little, and what would be left would be pretty pointless. Face the truth. This article simply provides a platform for racist bigots to stand on. Very ugly HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in any way comparing Wikipedia to the ACLU but, does anybody think that the ACLU supports neo-Nazis? They defend them in court because they want to show all sides of the issue. Same thing here, if something exists we can't just put our heads in the sand no matter how offensive the topic is. Especially if the article meets the requirements per WP:NOTE. Accept it, the article is here to stay. Wikipedia should be as transparent as possible. Lighthead...KILLS!! 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So if one person challenges any definition, we have to delete all text using that word? This is probably the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. It's lucky you have some name calling to change the subject. 119.196.38.20 (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Noting academic opposition to research in lede

It is no surprise that few scientists are actually researching in this area, outside your Jensens and Rushtons because no scientist want their academic record discredited for being 'racist'.

I want to add this to the introduction: "In any case, due to the highly controversial and sensitive nature of this topic, very few scientists will even consider participating in any research of this type, leading to considerable academic literature skewed in favor of environmental causes but very little research supporting any genetic reasons, which is seen as politically incorrect. Indeed, Bruce Lahn, tenured professor at the University of Chicago, who was studying gene variance in the brain in different populations, retreated from his research after an academic backlash against the implications of his work went so far as to threaten his tenure at the university." Source: Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html)

YvelinesFrance (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the same OLD original research and POV pushing just done by a NEW single purpose account. No. Volunteer Marek  20:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I can say the same thing. All I see is POV pushing. How is what I have written original research if it is backed up by a wall street journal article? In any case I disregard your opinion completely.YvelinesFrance (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the source doesn't say what you are pretending it says. Volunteer Marek  20:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The source describes a backlash due to research in a controversial topic. What about that do you not comprehend? I don't see what I wrote as incendiary anyway so I don't understand your problem. It's obvious that scientists do not want to research race and intelligence because of the sensitive nature of the topic. Do you disagree? This information should be included in the article. YvelinesFrance (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as misrepresenting the source, either. Here is what the source that YvelinesFrance linked to says:

"The 37-year-old Dr. Lahn says his research papers, published in Science last September, offered no view on race and intelligence. He personally believes it is possible that some populations will have more advantageous intelligence genes than others. And he thinks that "society will have to grapple with some very difficult facts" as scientific data accumulate. Yet Dr. Lahn, who left China after participating in prodemocracy protests, says intellectual "police" in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue."

And this is what it says about why Bruce Lahn stopped researching the topic:

"Dr. Lahn stands by his work but says that because of the controversy he is moving into other projects. Earlier this year, Mr. Easton of the university's media department forwarded Dr. Lahn a paper by two economists looking at the IQ of infants of different races. Dr. Lahn wasn't interested. "I'm surprised anyone studies this," he replied in an email."

How is YvelinesFrance's summary inconsistent with that? Zeromus1 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

...And in steps new SPA number two. If you think SPA number one's proposed 'contribution' accurately represents the source cited, take it to WP:RS, and see how it goes down there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice thing about these little flare ups is that they tend to flush out the sockpuppet accounts. Volunteer Marek  22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You're saying this misrepresents the source, but you're refusing to explain how even when I quote the parts of the source that support it. How do you think this is helpful? If you could say "This part of the summary is unsupported by the article" then we could find a way to summarize it that would satisfy you, but you're just trying to shut down discussion by commenting on the other editors instead of the content. Zeromus1 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How about "an academic backlash against the implications of [Lahn's] work went so far as to threaten his tenure at the university" for a start? The source says no such thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, due to the highly controversial and sensitive nature of this topic,^{[not in citation given]} very few scientists will even consider participating in any research of this type,^{[not in citation given]} leading to considerable academic literature skewed in favor of environmental causes^{[not in citation given]} but very little research supporting any genetic reasons,^{[not in citation given]} which is seen as politically incorrect^{[by whom?]}. Indeed, Bruce Lahn, tenured professor at the University of Chicago, who was studying gene variance in the brain in different populations,^{[not in citation given]} retreated from his research after an academic backlash against the implications of his work went so far as to threaten his tenure at the university.^{[not in citation given]}

Looks like a gross misrepresentation of the source to me. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's summary sounds pretty good, but we should wait for YvelinesFrance's opinion. I think he wanted to mention that Lahn moved away from researching this topic because of the controversy. I quoted the part of the WSJ article that supports this, so I don't understand why everyone is claiming the article doesn't support it. What part of "because of the controversy he is moving into other projects" isn't clear? Zeromus1 (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The part that defines "the controversy" as primarily concerning research "which is seen as politically incorrect" as opposed to Lahn's confusing correlation with causation. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The article quotes Harpending as saying, "I think that Bruce doesn't understand political correctness" as an explanation for the controversy. It also mentions that the association reported by Lahn may or may not stand up, but doesn't say anything him confusing correlation with causation. You are saying that to avoid misrepresenting the source, we must avoid mentioning something that the source mentions, and should instead say something the source doesn't say. How do you justify that? Zeromus1 (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a suggestion. The "political correctness" quote is Harpending using the standard defense of those that share his beliefs and should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think mentioning Lahn in the lede would be giving his situation undue weight, but there certainly seems to be a need to mention in the lede that at least one reason you don't find a lot of research on this matter is because it inherently generates controversy and hostility that many researchers would rather avoid. The WSJ article includes several quotes on that matter:

“ But some research is raising tensions as scientists such as Dr. Lahn venture into studies of genetic differences in behavior or intelligence . . . Other research is starting to explain variations in human skin color and hair texture. But scientists tense up when it comes to doing the same sort of research on the brain . . . Several groups of scientists have sent letters to Science criticizing the papers. ”

The wording suggested by Yvelines is a bit too editorialized, but this article can certainly be used to note the impact the controversy has on attempts at researching the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to try proposing a new wording, that improves on the wording YvelinesFrance suggested? Zeromus1 (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something like: "Research into genetic causes for intellectual differences between racial groups is controversial and faces resistance in the scientific community due to concerns about the social implications of such research." That would be sufficiently short and generalized for the lede, while representing the source well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Artifex Mayhem, do you have a Bachelor of Science degree from Harvard? Do you have a Phd from MIT? Do you have a professorship at one of the most prestigious universities in the world? What makes you think someone of Lahn's stature would confuse cause and correlation, one of the most basic mistakes of first year undergraduates of statistical courses? Your statement is humorously inane. In any case I am happy to see that a few other editors agree that research in this topic is very limited, at least in terms of using actual genetic data rather than fallible sociological studies that pose as scientific ones. Perhaps an editor better than I could come up with a better way to describe this phenomenon though I am fully willing to do it myself. YvelinesFrance (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

YvelinesFrance, do you approve of the wording suggested by The Devil's Advocate in the comment above yours? Zeromus1 (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do, it's much more succinct than my own words. YvelinesFrance (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The suggested wording is not supported by the source provided. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the wording in the lede suggested by The Devil's Advocate. It is succinct and it is surely not controversial to suggest that this is a controversial subject. --- Asteuartw (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with The Devil's Advocate's wording, and I think we should go ahead and add it to the article. It looks to me like ArtifexMayhem is just being obstructionist here, and that shouldn't prevent us improving the article. Zeromus1 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How is my suggesting wording not supported? Look at these excerpts from the source:

Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence . . . But some research is raising tensions as scientists such as Dr. Lahn venture into studies of genetic differences in behavior or intelligence . . . Other research is starting to explain variations in human skin color and hair texture. But scientists tense up when it comes to doing the same sort of research on the brain. Sociologist Troy Duster, who studies the use of racial categories by geneticists, worries that scientists will interpret data in ways that fit their prejudices. He cites the sorry history of phrenology, a study of skull shapes popular in the 19th century, and other pseudoscientific techniques used to categorize people as inferior . . . John Easton, head of media relations at the medical school, says his office was worried the work could be misinterpreted and abused by racist groups.

Now, some of that pertains specifically to Lahn's research, but several of those quotes clearly address the broader issue of there being resistance to research into race and intelligence due to concerns about the social implications. There are some additional sources that are of interest to this question: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. If you think the WSJ source is not quite sufficient then maybe some of these will do it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, the claim that the "research" itself faces "faces resistance" because of the possible "social implications" is not supported. It is Lahn's conclusions that are not supported. Other scientists are resistant to those conclusions specifically because they are not supported by the science (in this case Lahn's own research). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See the quotes "some research is raising tensions" and "scientists tense up when it comes to doing the same sort of research on the brain" as those directly point to the research itself facing resistance. The other sources provided more clearly point to this resistance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And that resistance may or may not be based on "social implications" (i.e. political correctness). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The quotes "worries that scientists will interpret data in ways that fit their prejudices" and "his office was worried the work could be misinterpreted and abused by racist groups" point to the resistance being about the social implications. Scientists are concerned, understandably so, that such research could seemingly legitimize arguments of white racial superiority. In the Independent article there is another such quote: "Sabeti says that she has not found any evidence in her haplotype analysis to support Lahn's findings, and she freely admits that this is a relief. 'This is a very delicate time, and a dangerous time, as people start to come up with things that the general public, or the media, or various groups might misinterpret.'" Also see the Nature article "Claims that sex- or race-based IQ gaps are partly genetic can offend entire groups, who feel that such work feeds hatred and discrimination. Pressure from professional organizations and university administrators can result in boycotting such research, and even in ending scientific careers." We have several sources now that can support the statement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's quite excellent, all we need now is a summary of it in the article itself. YvelinesFrance (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

They always write the same thing when they don't like it. "You're misrepresenting the source and you are a sockpuppet". They are liars, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.218.41.83 (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That's because usually you are misrepresenting the source and you are sockpuppets.  Volunteer Marek  14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've found another source that could be useful, it's from the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21564191):

It is not, however, a view that cut much ice in 20th-century social-scientific thinking, particularly after the second world war. Those who allowed that it might have some value were generally shouted down and sometimes abused, along with all others vehemently suspected of the heresy of believing that genetic differences between individuals could have a role in shaping their behavioural differences. Such thinking, a product compounded of Marxism (if character really is ingrained at birth, then man might not be perfectible) and a principled rejection of the eugenics that had led, via America’s sterilisation programmes for the “feeble minded”, to the Nazi extermination camps, made life hard for those who wished to ask whether genes really do affect behaviour.

It looks like we have more than enough evidence to put this information in the article, I will do so myself in a short delay. YvelinesFrance (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Utter garbage - the article isn't about 'race and intelligence' at all. Stop wasting our time with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Behaviour, the ability to make rational or irrational decisions stems from the brain and hence is very related to intelligence. The article may not be about intelligence and race proper but the quote itself is about the bias in academic circles against hereditarian approaches. Basically the kind of bias and knee jerk reaction that you yourself are putting on full display. YvelinesFrance (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about race and intelligence. As for 'bias', <- redacted -> look in a mirror sometime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

To decide that certain hypotheses are just plain wrong or inappropriate is not a sign of bias. It's a sign of wisdom. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, what do you think of the sources I noted above? Those are clearly about race and intelligence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 has decided that the hereditarian hypothesis is wrong. LMAO. And you are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.67.169.53 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Andythegrump and Hilo are simply not interested in constructive dialogue and are only here to hinder progress. Hilo's comment is especially revealing: "To decide that certain hypotheses are just plain wrong or inappropriate is not a sign of bias. It's a sign of wisdom". No, actually it's a sign of censorship. YvelinesFrance (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the job of observant and caring editors to eliminate fringe, POV garbage. We do it for many articles. That's not censorship. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe and remains under discussion by mainstream psychology researchers.[6] Editors who cannot grasp this fact should be shown the door. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.222.107.31 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So according to you, Hilo, that genes have any effect whatsoever, even minuscule, on differences between individuals and between groups of people who have existed in isolation for hundreds of millennia is fringe? I'd say the purely environmental explanation is fringe and POV, hence my quote from the Economist: "Those who allowed that it might have some value (the hereditarian approach) were generally shouted down and sometimes abused, along with all others vehemently suspected of the heresy of believing that genetic differences between individuals could have a role in shaping their behavioural differences.". Give it up Hilo, the only reason you are here is for political motives. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hilo, what do you think of the sources I provided and my suggested wording? I don't think there is a WP:FRINGE issue to note there is resistance to this research as such resistance is a matter of mainstream discourse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Devil's advocate - :"Research into genetic causes for intellectual differences between racial groups is controversial and faces resistance in the scientific community due to concerns about the social implications of such research." I think the statement is generally supportable but it's unnecessarily vague on the question of both "resistance" and "research". I think the point was made earlier that it was not research into the question per se that generated difficulties but findings which support or appear to support the idea that population group differences in IQ may have a genetic determination. Conversely, findings, at least if well supported, that contradict this contention are generally not controversial for the obvious reason that they're not socially contentious and are (sort of) in harmony with wider social, cultural and political beliefs. Most papers that I've read by researchers that address this issue state that their concerns are about the misuse of research findings and hence the way that findings are presented to the public. This strikes me as a bit naive but that's irrelevant. In regard to your proposed sources, I think the two articles from the Nature debate are relevant but I'd be wary about including blogs, even high-calibre ones. The Lahm article is very interesting and it's notable the high level of support he received from his colleagues. Anyhow, I offer the following imperfect rewording: "Genetic research into population-level differences in complex traits such as intelligence can be controversial and has excited heated debate.[7] Some in the research community fear that any findings of group difference in intelligence may be inappropriately generalised as inherent to particular racial or ethnic groups and perpetuate social-stereotypes while others voice the concern that the politicization of this question may curtail important avenues of research."[8][9]

FiachraByrne (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, is anyone aware of any kind of published metric for the research output on this question?FiachraByrne (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Those articles in Nature are definitely not blogs. Commentaries from credentialed scientists in the relevant field that are commissioned by and published in a reputable scientific journal are more than suitable as sources for material stating that there is resistance to research into this subject due to concerns about the potential implications. Presumably experts on the question of group differences in human intelligence would have some inkling as to the opposition such research can face. As to being generalized, it is the lede and thus should be a bit general, with the detail dealt with in the body and that would presumably mean the "ethics of research" section. That aside, I think your proposed wording is a decent alternative, though it could use a little polishing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In regard to the Nature sources I referred to those as articles, not blogs. The blogs I referred to were the two other sources which you linked to above [10] [11]. These are blogs, no? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, the way you wrote it made me think you were describing the Nature articles as blogs and we were about to fight fo' real cause I'm a thug. ;)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it was poorly phrased and your interpretation was valid. Your formulation is succinct and supportable, I think. I retain a reservation about the use of the term resistance in the absence of some qualification. I guess I'm drawing the implication from the sentence that research is not being done because of worries about social/political reactions and possible career implications. While it seems likely that funding would be much more difficult to get for genetic research into race and IQ due to the potential controversy which could ensue I'd like to see some support for that contention from secondary sources or, failing that, for the nature of resistance to be defined in way that the sources would support. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking "social implications" could be noted as specifically referring to the implications of findings being used by groups to support racist views. Would that suffice?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think so. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the way that FiachraByrne's wording also includes the perspective of Ceci and Williams, that the scientific value of the research outweighs the social concerns. If we decide to use The Devil's Advocate's proposed wording, could we still include a mention of that? Zeromus1 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as the lede goes we would not want to have too much detail. I think the "ethics of research" section in the article could be expanded to incorporate the more minute details.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I can support FiachraByrne's suggested wording as posted above (at 22:42, 15 October) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this wording?:

“ Research into genetic causes for racial differences in intellectual achievement is controversial and strictly scrutinized. Many researchers fear that the findings could be used to perpetuate negative stereotypes, while others contend that this attitude inhibits legitimate scientific inquiry. ”

I think that covers everything nicely and succinctly enough for the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Truthfully, I prefer my own formulation but I think your one is also acceptable. However, just to unnecessarily complicate things I'm going to offer a forth formulation (although my first - number 2 below - is probably more precise if less succinct)...

1."Research into genetic causes for intellectual differences between racial groups is controversial and faces resistance in the scientific community due to concerns about the social implications of such research."

2."Genetic research into population-level differences in complex traits such as intelligence can be controversial and has excited heated debate.[12] Some in the research community fear that any findings of group difference in intelligence may be inappropriately generalised as inherent to particular racial or ethnic groups and perpetuate social-stereotypes while others voice the concern that the politicization of this question may curtail important avenues of research."[13][14]

3."Research into genetic causes for racial differences in intellectual achievement is controversial and strictly scrutinized. Many researchers fear that the findings could be used to perpetuate negative stereotypes, while others contend that this attitude inhibits legitimate scientific inquiry"

4."Genetic research into population-level differences in intelligence can be controversial and has generated heated debate. Some researchers fear that the findings could be misused to perpetuate racial stereotypes, while others contend that the politicization of the field threatens to foreclose important avenues of research."

I think the reference to "population-level" research categories probably more accurately reflects the preferred terminology in the field. I think the distinction that this research can be rather than is controversial is somewhat important as not all such research is necessarily controversial. If can be is used closely scrutinized cannot follow. Also, most research is closely scrutinized (or, at least, it's supposed to be). I think some researchers rather than many researchers is preferable in the absence of any kind of quantification of positions in the field. I think misused is preferable to used as those who support this position generally interpret its application by political (racialist etc) groups as a misappropriation and distortion of findings. The use of the term politicization of the field more accurately reflects the fears of such researchers that political correctness/sensitivities has or could place certain research topics beyond the pale. I think that foreclose important avenues of research is better than inhibits legitimate scientific inquiry as their stated beliefs are not simply that the inquiry is legitimate but is likely to generate significant benefits (however, unlikely this actually is). It's also only slightly longer than your phrasing (No. 3) this time. Having said that I'm happy with either 2, 4 or 3 at this point and in that order. So if everyone else would like to choose we could maybe move on ...? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to mention that lots of researchers have turned away from the topic due to fears of harassment and ostracism. Something like this:

Research into potential genetic causes of intellectual differences between races is controversial and has generated heated debate. Some researchers fear that the findings could be misused to perpetuate racial stereotypes, while others contend that the politicization of the field threatens to foreclose important avenues of research. Scientists engaged in genetically-informed research on the topic have frequently met with condemnation and ostracism, which has had the effect of dissuading investigations of the topic.

--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence is too slanted, but I think this suggestion would work well without that last sentence. Not too fond of the word "foreclose", but that would be simple to address.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

How is it slanted? It's true and well supported by Ceci & Williams and other sources. One of the most salient facts about race and intelligence is that the few contemporary researchers who have dared to suggest that genes may have something to do with it have become academic outcasts, with the result that relatively little research on the topic gets done. The last sentence can be reworded, but the basic idea should be included in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the Devil's Advocate: Victor's formulation is fine if the last sentence is excluded. The first sentence is quite sufficient for the lede. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

So, how would you rank it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's probably the best one. I'd just like someone to stick it in at this point so we could move on. If Victor wants to continue to argue for the second sentence that is, of course, fine but can we presume that we have consensus for the first one? If you want to change the word "foreclose" to something else I'm quite open to that (hamper/stifle?).FiachraByrne (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I put it in at the end of the second paragraph of the lede. Not sure if that is the best place for it, but I don't think it should go in the first and the second paragraph was a bit shorter than the others. It could go at the end of the third paragraph if someone doesn't like it being in the second.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. I think we should leave the lede and concentrate on fixing the body of the article - build consensus for removal of tags (impossible task?).FiachraByrne (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Causal Analysis of Academic Performance

I came across this article entitled Analysis of Academic Performance' (1977) in the journal Behavior Genetics by Rao, Morton, Elson and Yee that was cited in this review article (2009) on race and genetics by one of the authors (Morton) of the 1977 study. The findings, I think, are interesting:

Several studies have indicated that the contemporary difference in IQ between American Blacks and Whites is 15 points, without adjustments for socioeconomic class or region (e.g., Shuey, 1966). Since the tests used to define performance are highly correlated with IQ, we may take performance and IQ as equivalent. Our analysis of the Equal Educational Opportunity Survey shows that the causal effect of race is only about 15 (0.2) = 3 IQ points. This is the difference that would be expected if children were randomized among social classes, other factors remaining the same.

I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the quality and relevance of this source for the race and intelligence article.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's already well established among mainstream psychologists that there is a significant racial gap in IQ between blacks and whites even corrected for socioeconomic status. The only controversy is the reason why this is so. I wouldn't put much faith in that single study that you've dug up.YvelinesFrance (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In general (i.e. without a suggestion as to how it might be used) I don't see any problems with source quality or relevance. You might also find the following relevant...

Using a new data set, we demonstrate that among entering kindergartners, the black-white gap in test scores can be essentially eliminated by controlling for just a small number of observable characteristics of the children and their environment. — source

— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be based on single studies but rather on well-established findings supported by many studies and reported in secondary sources. The basic problem with controlling for environmental factors is that there's no evidence that you're actually controlling for causal factors.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Tags

This article has multiple tags - it will probably always have them given the nature of the subject matter - but would it be a plan to systematically work to remove these as far as possible?

• The Section on Brain Size has an undue weight tag
• The Section on Regression towards the mean has an undue weight tag
• The Section on Genetics of Race and Intelligence has an undue weight tag
• The Section on Evolutionary theories has an undue weight tag
• The Section on Genetic Arguments" has a neutrality disputed tag
• The Section on Validity of Race and IQ has an undue weight tag
• The Section on History of Debate has this section should be summary of main article on History of Race and Intelligence Controversy
• The Article is tagged with: does not represent a worldview; undue weight; factual accuracy disputed; neutrality disputed; unbalanced.

Are there any arguments to support, say, that the section on Regression towards the mean has been given undue weight? It consists of two sentences. The first outlines Jensen and Rushton's position. The second refutes it. Is this really undue weight?FiachraByrne (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the current history section gives way too much attention to the modern debate. We have exactly two paragraphs on the widespread eugenics research in the early 20th Century, followed by seven paragraphs about more recent research. I think trimming the latter down would get things closer to where we would want to be on that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As a start I'd advocate moving the section on the Pioneer Fund into the Ethics of research section. Also I'd like to put in headers for the history section to divide pre- and post-WWII. I'd probably remove/move the third and second last paragraphs as well FiachraByrne (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind there's already a separate History of the race and intelligence controversy article. It would be best if we could minimize the amount of content we duplicate that's already in another article. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is certainly in a dire state. Most of the undue tags relate to the over weight given to Rushton, Jensen, et al, scientists who have failed to build mainstream consensus for their conclusions despite decades of research. Any move to address these weight problems would be welcomed. aprock (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, they can hardly be excluded, regardless of consensus, due to their importance to the debate. I think you could say - based on many statements in research papers - that the consensus amongst geneticists is that racial difference in IQ is not accounted for by genetics.

In regard to Jensen, although it's a pretty crude measure, we could weight the relative importance of his articles at least based upon how often they've been cited. So, using Scopus (author search for Jensen, Arthur and searched within results for race and intellligence), the following are his top cited articles and therefore the ones which should be given greatest weight:

• Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (2005) 108 Cites
• Race, Social Class and Ability Patterns on the WISC-R (1982) 35 Cites
• Race and Sex Difference in Head Size and IQ (1994) 26 Cites
• Forward and Backward Digit Span Interaction with Race and IQ: Predictions from Jensen's Theory (1975) 19 Cites
• Occupation and Income Related to Psychometric G (2001) 15 Cites
• The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Still Remains (2006) 13 Cites
• African-White IQ Differences from Zimbabwe on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised are mainly on the G Factor (2003) 11 cites
• Comments on Correlations of IQ with Skin Color and Geographic-Demographic Variables (2006) 9 Cites
• Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy (2005) 9 Cites
• James Watson's Most Inconvenient Truth: Race Realism and the Moralistic Fallacy (2008) 8 Cites
• Adoption Data and Two G Related Hypotheses (1997) 8 Cites
• An Examination of Culture Bias in the Wonderlic Test (1977) 6 Cites
• Personality and Scholastic Achievement in Three Ethnic Groups (1973) 6 Cites
• The Rise and Fall of the Flynn Effect as a Reason to Expect a Narrowing of Black-White IQ (2010) 5 Cites
• Galton's Legacy to Research on Intelligence (2002) 5 Cites
• Interaction of Level I and Level II Abilities with Race and Socioeconomic Status (1974) 5 Cites
• The Theory of Intelligence and its Measurement (2011) 4 Cites
• Do Age-Group Differences on Mental Tests Imitate Racial Differences (2003) 3 Cites

According to Scopus, the remainder of his articles receive 0 cites. Obviously, there are some historical articles that are not returned which should probably be included. Also, one should weigh these results in terms of the recency of publication as 2011 article has had less time to accumulate citations than an article from 1974. FiachraByrne (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Those citation numbers are not even remotely plausible. Check out Google Scholar, each of those has been cited many more times. "How Much Can We Boost..." probably has more citations than any other article in the history of IQ research. His books, especially Bias in Mental Testing and The g Factor, are also some of the most frequently cited monographs in the history of the discipline. The latter, in particular, is the sine qua non of contemporary research on cognitive abilities, and is cited numerous times in each issue of various specialist journals.

There is zero evidence for the claim that "the consensus amongst geneticists is that racial difference in IQ is not accounted for by genetics." Moreover, the question is not strictly in the purview of geneticists per se, but rather psychometricians and behavior geneticists (who may not be geneticists by training). It's difficult to establish what the mainstream view on the causes of racial differences is because it's such a taboo subject. The best evidence we have is from the anonymous 1980s survey of hundreds of behavioral scientists by Snyderman and Rothman. It showed that the modal view of experts on just about all questions was the same as Jensen's. For example, only 15% said that the black-white IQ gap was entirely due to non-genetic factors, whereas 45% said that both genetic and non-genetic factors are involved. The 1994 Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement, signed by 52 experts, is also completely in line with Jensen's views. There is no reason to believe that the views of experts on this topic have radically changed since the 1980s and 1990s.

The best answer we have is that currently there is no consensus on the causes of racial disparities in IQ (cf. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns). In this article, we should present all prominent viewpoints and arguments that have been published in reliable sources. Those include the views of hereditarians like Jensen and Rushton as well as those of their opponents.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar is not an appropriate source to track citations. No plausible published study would use it as a metric. I'm looking specifically at articles not at books as these would require a different measurement instrument. I've also explicitly stated that this may not be only database from which to draw citations - although I'd struggle to think of a better one for this field. The statement that there is a consensus amongst geneticists that the IQ gap is not attributable to genetic differences between races is derived from review articles/op ed. pieces that make that contention such as the Ceci and Williams article - there are more and you could argue that there doing that to insulate the field from critique. Obviously, such a statement would need more support and would not necessarily apply to different disciplines. The 1980 survey you refer is too old to hold any contemporary relevance and likewise with the statement on 'mainstream science' from the early 1990s. They are historically relevant but that's it. It would be better to cite a recent review article giving an overview of the field and positions within it. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Scopus database (and there may be more relevant databases), a search for race and intelligence in all fields returns 14,130 articles. Limiting these results to review articles with key words for race and intelligence returned 203 articles. Based on a reading of article abstracts, not all of these were directly relevant (articles on anti-social behaviour, etc). So based on citations, the most relevant articles are:

• Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment (2003) 188 Citations

• Neurobiology of intelligence: Science and ethics (2004) 134 Citations

• Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race (2005) 108 Cites

• Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviors in Stratification Processes (2003) 105 cites

• Genetics of brain structure and intelligence (2005) 93 Cites (not sure how relevant race is for this article)

• Human Abilities (1998) 81 Cites (not sure how relevant race is for this article)

• Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups (2004) 68 cites

• Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research (2007) 62 cites (not sure of relevance for race)

• The Bell Curve: On race, social class, and epidemiologic research (1996) 52 Cites

• Four-Year Review of the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Epidemiologic and Public Health Research (2004) 43 Cites (not sure of relevance for intelligence)

• Cross-cultural effects on IQ test performance: A review and preliminary normative indications on WAIS-III test performance (2004) 36 cites

• The secular rise in IQ: Giving heterosis a closer look (2004) 36 cites

• The status of the race concept in physical anthropology (1998) 33 cites (not sure of relevance for intelligence)

• Deconstructing race and ethnicity: Implications for measurement of health outcomes (2006) 30 cites

• Genes, race, and psychology in the genome era: An introduction (2005) 22 Cites

• Myopia, intelligence, and the expanding human neocortex: Behavioral influences and evolutionary implications (1999) 21 cites (not sure of relevance for race)

• Whole brain size and general mental ability: A review (2009) 18 cites

• On models and muddles of heritability (1997) 14 cites

• Is the demise of IQ interpretation justified? A response to special issue authors (2007) 12 cites (questionable inclusion)

• Psychopathic personality and racial/ethnic differences reconsidered: A reply to Lynn (2002) (2003) 11 cites

• Size matters: A review and new analyses of racial differences in cranial capacity and intelligence that refute Kamin and Omari (2000) 10 cites

• Genetic aspects of intelligence (1975) 10 cites

• Whole brain size and general mental ability: a review. (2009) 9 cites

• Hereditarian scientific fallacies (1997) 9 cites

• Some history of heredity-vs-environment, genetic inferiority at Harvard(?), and The (incredible) Bell Curve (1997) 8 cites

• Genetic differences and school readiness (2005) 7 cites

• Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments (2012) 5 cites (no abstract for this)

• Intelligence (I.J. Deary) 2012 (5 cites) (not sure of relevance to race)

• Personality psychology: Current state and future prospects | [Persönlichkeitspsychologie: Stand und perspektiven] (2005) 5 cites (not sure of relevance to race)

These results are obviously imperfect. First, they should really be broken up by discipline. Further, not every article included really meets the criteria of a review article. Textbooks should also be included - we just need a plausible system to weigh their relative influence. I think the idea of using some kind of metric is sound, however, as opinions on this topic are extremely subjective. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I should state that the Scopus database only goes back to 1973, ... incorrect, but not sure why earlier articles for Jensen were not showing up ... hence my observation that we'd also have to include some historical articles. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What you say about Google Scholar is not true. Quoting from the Wiki article: Some searchers consider Google Scholar of comparable quality and utility to commercial databases.[16][17] The reviews recognize that its "cited by" feature in particular poses serious competition to Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge, although, in a study limited to the biomedical field, the citation information found in Google Scholar have found to be sometimes inadequate, and less often updated.[18] Your limitation to articles is also arbitrary, because lots of research on race & IQ is published in multiple-author books and monographs. Scopus appears to be rather unreliable. For example, it reports six citations for "Personality and Scholastic Achievement in Three Ethnic Groups", but Google Scholar reports 20, most of them articles. Moreover, the Scopus list does not include some of Jensen's most important and highly cited articles, such as his 1982 Behavioral and Brain Sciences target article on Spearman's hypothesis. In short, Scopus is not reliable here and even if it were, citation counts are not the way to judge what sources are relevant in Wikipedia.

Your argument that a survey from 1984 and a consensus statement from 1994 are only of historical interest makes no sense. Both and especially the 1994 statement are frequently cited in newer research. If you were right, then surely the 1996 APA report, the 1994 AAA statement, and the 1996 AAPA statement, all prominently cited in the article, are also outdated. The idea that sources have some clear expiration dates leads to absurdity.

Ceci and Williams's self-serving claims about consensus are unsupported by anything other than their own words. There are other recent sources, such as Earl Hunt's new textbook Human Intelligence (2011), which hold that the causes of the racial gaps are currently unknown and that strong claims in either direction are not supported by evidence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The limitation to articles is based upon what is searchable through Scopus. I didn't imply that books should be excluded, just that I wasn't sure what metric to use to weigh them. The purpose of the citation index is to get a feel for the actual distribution of influence and the relative weight of sources in the field. It might be a useful guide but it would not be a solely determining instrument for an article's inclusion or exclusion. Some of your points on Google Scholar are valid. It returns a reasonable result of an individual author. Trying to search for sources through key words is another matter. In the latter instance, it becomes unworkable. Thus, if I search for "race AND intelligence" it returns 759,000 results. Now, this is many more results than Scopus or an equivalent database would provide but they are ranked based upon the frequency of the appearance of those terms in the title or text rather than on citations or some other measure. Nor can I do much to order those search returns. It would take days to go through it whereas I can establish a similar result through Scopus in minutes. Scopus may return less results but I can be reasonably confident that recent work in established journals will be returned. Now, it may then be feasible to turn to Google Scholar and search for individual items or authors but I'd suggest that we use Scopus or Web of Science first. Scopus is widely used in Academia even if it imperfect. I don't think it's plausible to say its unreliable. The use of citation counts is relevant because it's the only way to arbitrate the 'undue' tags that have proliferated throughout the article.

Ceci and William's statement may not be true and it may be self-serving. I don't know. I do know that we're using their other statements to support contentions in the lede. I also think they have a reasonable claim to speak for their field in op-ed piece. However, if such a statement were to be inserted it would need support from other sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ceci and Williams's claim about "an emerging consensus" is self-serving, unverifiable, and contradicted by other sources, but their other arguments do not suffer from such limitations. Establishing what the scientific consensus is in a field where expressing certain viewpoints leads to public condemnation, academic ostracism, and, in some countries, police investigations, is obviously a tricky matter. Snyderman and Rothman's survey showed that the views of scientists, when surveyed anonymously, on controversial topics are often at great variance with what the media and individual scientists consider to be the mainstream view.

There is a Wikipedia guideline on identifying reliable sources, so there's no legitimate rationale for coming up with standards for reliable sources that apply only to this article. A good way of finding relevant sources is to look at prominent books and reviews that deal with race and intelligence. For example, there are very few accounts that do not give a prominent place to Arthur Jensen's views.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've previously said the validity of the Ceci and Williams claim would depend on the addition of other sources.

As to the other matter, it's not issue of whether sources are reliable but as to whether they've been given undue prominence. I'm suggesting that we could use a citation index to help us determine that. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we also should look into whether this article gives undue prominence to Richard Nisbett. Google scholar shows 160 citations to Intelligence and How to Get It, while The g Factor is cited 2,181 times. Yet in this article there are 13 citations to Nisbett's book, and only three citations to The g Factor. I haven't examined Scopus, but based on Google scholar Nisbett's book seems to be given far more weight than it should. Zeromus1 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that that is supportable. Bear in mind, however, that Nisbett's article was only published in 2009 - therefore it's averaging 40 citations a year and is highly cited. Jensen's article is averaging 145 citations, however. That doesn’t mean Jensen’s article is supported and this is a crude measure, etc, but Jensen's publication is obviously important to the topic even if a lot of those citations are criticisms. But I'd like to get an overview of the field first. Also, what I’d really like to identify is a highly cited review publication or textbook that addresses the issue of race and intelligence.

I got a piece of free software called Publish or Perish which makes the Google Scholar results sortable etc. The other thing I've been wondering is what kind of weight we can give to Google Scholar's ranking? Does it provide a better result than simple citation counting. There's a decent evaluation of its ranking algorithm here if anyone's interested. It obviously over-rates publication titles rather than text for searches. There are lists below of some searches I did through Google Scholar that were sorted using Publish or Perish. Some of these publications or more or less relevant and I’m not suggesting that all of these publications or that only these publications should be included. It’s just an indication of some important publications that address the subject. Now doing a basic search for Race AND IQ through Google Scholar we get the following results:

Publications Google Scholar ranks the highest (three publications edited out as irrelevant):

• RC Lewontin, ‘Race and Intelligence’ (1970) in Race and IQ. Cites 151 Cites per year 3.51

• S Scarr-Salapatek, ‘Race, social class and IQ’ (1971) in Science. Cites 216 Cites per year 5.14

• A. Montagu, Race and IQ (2011). Cites 63 Cites per year 31.5

• AR Jensen, RA Figueroa, ‘Forward and backward digit span interaction with race and IQ: Predictions from Jensen’s theory’ (1975), Journal of Educational Psychology. Cites 85 Cites per year 2.24

• C Lane, ‘The Tainted Sources of ‘The Bell Curve’ (1999) in Race and IQ. Cites 58 Cites per year 4.14

• U Bronfenbrenner, ‘Nature with nurture: a reinterpretation of the evidence’ (1975) in Race and IQ. Cites 30 Cites per year 0.79

• J. Tizzard, ‘Race and IQ: The Limits of Probability’ (1975) in Journal of Ethnicity and Migration. Cites 34 Cites per year 0.84

• WF Bodmer, ‘Race and IQ: The Genetic Background’ (1972) in Race Culture and Intelligence. Cites 25 Cites per year 0.61

• RS Cooper, ‘Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina’ (2005) in American Psychologist. Cites 29 Cites per year 3.63

• U Bronfenbrenner, ‘Is early intervention effective? Some studies of early education in familial and extrafamilial settings’ (1975) in Race and IQ. Cites 17 Cites per year 0.45

• S. Rose, ‘Darwin 200: Should scientists study race and IQ? NO: Science and society do not benefit’ (2009) in Nature. Cites 19 Cites per year 4.75

• JR Flynn, ‘Race and IQ: Jensen’s Case Refuted’ (1987) in Arthur Jensen: Consensus and … Cites 25 Cites per year 0.96

• P Watson, ‘How Race Affects IQ’ (1970) in New Society. Cites 20 Cites per year 0.47

• S Ceci, WM Williams, ‘Darwin 200: Should Scientists Study Race and IQ? Yes: The Scientific Truth Must Be Pursued (2009) in Nature. Cites 13 Cites per year 3.25

• T Sowell, ‘Race and IQ Reconsidered’ (1978) in Essays and Data on America … Cites 17 Cites per year 0.49

• SE Luria, ‘What can biologists solve’ (1975) in Race and IQ. Cites 13 Cites per year 0.34

• A Montagu, ‘Intelligence, IQ, and Race’ (1999) in Race and IQ. Cites 1 Cites per year 0.07

• H McGary, Race and Social Justice (1998). Cites 45 Cites per year 3

• JP Rushton, AR Jensen, ‘Race and IQ: A Theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to get …’ (2010) in The Open Psychology Journal. Cites 16 Cites per year 5.33

• C Senna, The Fallacy of IQ (1973). Cites 13 Cites per year 0.33

Most cited, total (several publications edited out as irrelevant)

• D Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (2006). Cites 13738 Cites per year 1962.57 Google Rank 237

• AR Jensen, How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement (1969) in Harvard Educational Review. Cites 3397 Cites per year 77.20 Google Rank 276

• B Hart, TR Risley, Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children (1995). Cites 3125 Cites per year Google Rank 208

• PJ Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights (1991). Cites 2742 Cites per year 124.64 Google Rank 398

• C Jencks, M Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998). Cites 2218 Cites per year 147.87 Google Rank 81

• AR Jensen, The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998). Cites 2181 Cites per year 145.40 Google Rank 48

• A Lareau, Unequal Childhoods: Class, race and family life (2011). Cites 1994 Cites per year 997 Google Rank 417

• I Lopez, White by Law 10th Anniversary Edition: The Legal Construction of Race (2006). Cites 1686 Cites per year 240.86 Google Rank 487

• U Neisser, G Boodoo, TJ … ‘Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns’ (1996) in American … Cites 1592 Cites per year 93.65 Google Rank 344

• JR Flynn, ‘Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure (1987) in Psychological Bulletin. Cites 1300 Cites per year 50 Google Rank 185

• LJ Kamin, The Science and Politics of IQ (1974). Cites 1253 Cites per year 32.13

• TF Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (1997). Cites 962 Cites per year 60.13 Google Rank 485

• AA Summers, BL Wolfe, ‘Do Schools Make a Difference’ (1977) in The American Economic Review. Cites 838 Cites per year 23.28 Google Rank 82

• A Montagu, Man’s most dangerous myth: the fallacy of race (1997). Cites 816 Cites per year 51 Google Rank 286

• JR Flynn, The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains 1932 to 1978 (1984) in Psychological Bulletin. Cites 757 Cites per year 26.1 Google Rank 158

• AJ Sameroff, R Seifer, A … ‘Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors (2008) in Child … Cites 595 Cites per year 119 Google Rank 663

• RJ Gregory, Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications (2004). Cites 582 Cites per year 64.67 Google Rank 285

• E Turkheimer, A Haley … ‘Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children’ (2003) in Psychological … Cites 573 Cites per year 57.3 Google Rank 83

• AL Reiss, MT Abrams, H… ‘Brain development, gender and IQ in children: A volumetric imaging study (1996) in Brain. Cites 564 Cites per year 33.18 Google Rank 597

• SJ Ceci, ‘How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment … (1991) in Developmental Psychology. Cites 520 Cites per year 23.64 Google Rank 66

Most cited per year (this list unedited)

• D Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (2006). Cites 13738 Cites per year 1962.57 Google Rank 237

• A Lareau, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life (2011). Cites 1994 Cites per year 997 Google Rank 417

• S Walker, C Spohn, MD … ‘ The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America (2011). Cites 513 Cites per year 256.5 Google Rank 174

• I Lopez, White by Law 10th Anniversary Edition: The legal construction of race (2006). Cites 1686 Cites per year 240.86 Google Rank 487

• B Hart, TR Risley, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children (1995). Cites 3125 Cites per year 173.61 Google Rank 208

• C Jencks, M Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998). Cites 2218 Cites per year 147.87 Google Rank 81

• AR Jensen, The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998). Cites 2181 Cites per year 145.4 Google Rank 48

• PJ Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights (1991). Cites 2742 Cites per year 124.64 Google Rank 398

• AJ Sameroff, R Seifer, A … ‘Stability of Intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors (2008) in Child … Cites 595 Cites per year 119 Google Rank 663

• U Neisser, G Boodoo, TJ … Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1996) America … Cites 1592 Cites per year 93.65 Google Rank 344

• JG Altonji, RM Blank, Race and Gender in the Labor Market (1999) in Handbook of Labor Economics. Cites 1253 Cites per year 89.5 Google Rank 562

• AR Jensen, ‘How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement’ (1969) in Harvard Educational Review. Cites 3397 Cites per year 77.2 Google Rank 276

• RJ Gregory, Psychological Testing: History, principles and applications (2004). Cites 582 Cites per year 64.67 Google Rank 285

• D Cole, No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System (2000). Cites 818 Cites per year 62.92 Google Rank 609

• T Duster, Backdoor to Eugenics (2003). Cites 615 Cites per year 61.5 Google Rank 748

• TF Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (1997). Cites 962 Cites per year 60.13 Google Rank 485

• E Turkheimer, A Haley … ‘Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children’ (2003) in Psychological … Cites 573 Cites per year 57.3 Google Rank 83

• AP Streissguth, HM … ‘Moderate prenatal alcohol exposure: effects on child IQ and learning problems at age 7 ½ years (2006) in Alcoholism: Clinical and … Cites 387 Cites per year 55.29 Google Rank 381

• D Conley, Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth and Social Policy in America (1999). Cites 766 Cites per year 54.71 Google Rank 552

• M Harris, A Raviv, ‘Differences of Opinion Make a Horse Race’ (1993) in Review of Financial Studies. Cites 1090 Cites per year 54.5 Google Rank 383 FiachraByrne (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

For the discipline of psychology at least, the text to get would appear to be Robert J. Gregory's Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications (2010).FiachraByrne (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We've clearly fallen into the POV pushing train here. The expressed sentiment appears to be that the views of Rushton and Jensen should be elevated even further, and this sentiment is being pushed by what appears to be original research and over-reliance on primary sources. If people are serious about contributing to this article, they are going to have to put away primary sources pick up some tertiary sources, like textbooks and external reviews, to get an understanding of the mainstream view of this topic. aprock (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you've come to those conclusions regarding POV pushing or original research. The attempt is to address in some kind of objective manner the undue tags that have been added to the article. If you look at the citation results from Scopus I've identified review articles and, as I haven't cherry picked them, they reflect a diversity of views. I can't select research articles or textbooks in a simple non-labour intensive manner with Google Scholar but in the post just above yours I've identified what I think is the single tertiary source that appears in the top 20 (based on total citations and citations per year) for those results. Now, it's a text book about psychological testing so, without having access to it at this point, I presume that it at least supports the validity of IQ tests. But I've highlighted the text not because it reflects my POV (it doesn't if that matters) but because it is a highly cited textbook that addresses race and IQ. Therefore, it should be a suitable source for the perspective of that discipline. I haven't doctored the results to reflect mine or any other point of view and, again, if you actually look through the Google ones I don't believe Rushton appears at all. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As interesting as your research on Scopus has been, it is precisely original research and cannot be any kind of basis for determining which primary sources to cite. aprock (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Whereas your personal opinion is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.92.159.73 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that James Flynn is probably the most reliable commentator on this topic ... but who cares? I have no expertise on this issue.

The writing of any article in WP depends upon researching good sources. The number of citation returns can be used to identify publications which are widely cited in the field thus indicating their importance, relevance and reliability in the field. Scopus and Google Scholar have been used to identify: 1) the citation returns for a single scholar - (Jensen using Scopus); review literature for the topic (using Scopus); and the most highly cited or ranked (according to Google) publications in the field (using Google Scholar). From the Google Scholar search I've identified a single tertiary source that is not currently used in the article but it would be quite possible to identify more by examining more returns. The Scopus returns identify many more secondary and tertiary sources. If I'm not mistaken this is what you were calling for yourself in previous posts? The citation returns from the Scopus or Google Scholar database searches are not themselves going to be included in the article so I don't see how WP:NOR is relevant. The initial impetus to investigate citations was to explore to what degree WP:UNDUE applied to certain tagged sections of the article. The policy on WP:UNDUE states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". The methods it advocates to establish the proportional prominence of a given viewpoint are decidedly impressionistic but that would probably be sufficient in most scenarios. However, I'm attempting to introduce an objective measure to assist, but not determine, the relative weight that should be given to the primary, secondary and tertiary sources for the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, any improvements we make to the article will have to be made one at a time. Rather than attempt to fix the entire article at once, I think it would be best to focus on specific steps we can take to incrementally make it better.

Are we agreed that this article gives undue prominence to Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It? It is the article's most cited source. It's cited more than the 1996 report from the APA, and more than any textbook. Intelligence and How to Get It is not actually the most prominent source that exists about race and intelligence, but this article treats it as though it were.

A few months ago, ArtifexMayhem went through the article and removed a lot of the material cited to Jensen that he viewed as excessive. I suggest that the same thing should now also be done for some of the excessive Nisbett material. Zeromus1 (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need good, highly cited secondary or, ideally, tertiary level sources for each of the relevant disciplines who have approached this research question (sociology, psychology, genetics, etc). We should then use these sources to frame the positions by discipline in each section and then drill down to primary sources to make sure that there's good coverage of all major viewpoints, arguments and rebuttals. I'm not sure the edits by ArtifexMayhem improved the article nor am I convinced, even if the presence of his 2009 publication is excessive, that editing out Nesbitt's points will necessarily improve the article either. Additionally, you appear to be advocating tit-for-tat editing which is not conducive to establishing any kind of consensus.

Anyhow, as I said citation counts, used on their own, are a crude measure. Bear in mind also that most of the citations removed were to Rushton and Jensen's 2010 article, which is hardly their most cited. Obviously more recent material won't have had the opportunity to get as many citations (and that Google counts everything) and recent articles & publications will have more up-to-date arguments and analysis of data and so, provided the primary research has had a chance to make it into the secondary literature, it should be treated more favourably. Going on citation counts alone it seems that Rushton and Jensen's 2010 article was over-cited and probably still is - but you'd have to look at the content of the article, the quality of sources which cite it, what disciplines they are in, how often the publication's authors are in fact citing it and what those sources say about it [15]. Equally, you'd have to do the same for Nisbett's 2009 article [16]. Having said that I'm not hugely in favour of removing content and citation counts should just be a guide to the use of sources. Also, overall I'd have to say that Jensen, pivotal as he is to the whole question, has pretty good coverage in terms of breadth and depth.

Nisbett has two publications cited.

• 2005 publication cited once in this article and entitled "Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen" (39 total cites; 4.88 per year);
• 2009 publication cited 13 times in this article entitled Intelligence and how to get it (160 cites in total; 40 per year).

Relevant publications by Nisbett which are not currently cited in the article include:

• RE Nisbett et al., Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments (2012) (19 cites; 19 per year)
• RE Nisbett, 'Race, Genetics and IQ' in The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998) (99 cites; 6.6 per year)

Jensen has 9 publications cited where he is either the sole or co-author.

• 1969 article cited 1 time in this article entitled 'How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement' (3397 cites; 77.2 per year);
• 1973 book cited 1 time in this article entitled Educability and Group Differences (15 cites; 0.38 per year);
• 1993 article with Whang cited 1 time in this article entitled 'Reaction time and intelligence' (44 cites; 2.2 per year);
• 1994 article with Johnson cited 1 time in this article entitled 'Race and Sex Difference in Head Size and IQ' (68 cites; 3.58 per year);
• 1998 book cited 3 times in this article entitled The G Factor (2181 cites; 145.4 per year);
• 2005 article with Rushton cited 7 times in this article entitled 'Thirty Years of Research on Race Difference in Cognitive Ability' (229 cites; 28.6 per year);
• 2006 article with Rushton cited 1 time in this article entitled 'The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains' (35 cites; 5 per year);
• 2006 book cited 2 times in this article entitled Clocking the Mind (133 cites; 19 per year);
• 2010 article with Rushton cited 5 times in this article entitled 'Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It' (16 cites; 5.33).

Relevant relatively recent publications by Jensen which are currently not in the article include:

• AR Jensen, JP Rushton, 'Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy' in Psychology, Public Policy and Law (2005) (35 cites; 4.38 per year)

FiachraByrne (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggested cutting out some of the Nisbett material just because looking at the article history, that appears to be the cleanest way to solve the problem of undue weight. When the Jensen material was removed, Victor Chmara reverted the removal once and then his revert was undone, but as far as I can see it never was brought up on the talk page. If we could do the same thing with Nisbett, that would be an easy way to solve the undue weight problem for him also.

The reason I'm unsure about your suggestion is because I'm not sure it's realistic we'll able to take a top-down approach and rewrite the whole article. It likely will take at least a month, and who knows what might change in that time? The Devil's Advocate helped a lot with reaching a consensus about the lead, but now there's a discussion at WP:AE about possibly indef blocking him. In my user talk, Victor Chmara said that he usually stays away from this article, and I'm not confident I'll still be around in a month either. Are you confident you'll be around for long enough for your approach to bring real improvements to the article? Zeromus1 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I could not agree more. High quality secondary sources are key. Where did you want to start? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little perturbed by how easy it appears for some users who work on this page to be sanctioned so I might review my participation here. Also, I've several deadlines for the next few days so I won't be posting so regularly, probably. Incidentally Zerosmus1 I left a comment on the discussion at WP:AE, for what it's worth, of my own limited experience of working with TDA on this page. I can't really advocate editing on the basis of when people may become blocked or banned, however. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, as an immediate issue I think a fair point is raised that Nisbett's 2009 publication, while useful in addressing many of the issues, is over-represented as a source. Therefore, it would seem logical to replace some of those citations with 3rd-party-authored quality secondary sources that discuss Nisbett's findings. Due to the recency of Nisbett's book there aren't going to be that many that discuss the aspects of his text that deal specifically with race and IQ, unfortunately (63 mention race and IQ all told). As an aside, is it reasonable, if not ideal, to treat the literature review section (and only that) of primary research articles as secondary sources? Perhaps if we just agreed to follow WP:MEDRS so far as possible it might facilitate things. Anyhow, there have been about 160 citations of Nisbett's 2009 book and 63 mention race and IQ. I've been through a few of these and thus far the best I can find is this one which may be adequate for some points but is far from ideal. Are the arguments which Nisbett presents in his 2009 publication and which are contained in this WP article novel to the 2009 publication or has he published most of these points before and therefore could other secondary sources be used? Longer term I'd like to identify a few, reliable 3rd-party-authored secondary sources for each of the relevant disciplines that review the literature in some kind of systematic way and that present the arguments of the various proponents fairly. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, the paper you linked to appears to be about brain size. I can't tell whether it's a secondary source, but if it is it would be a good source to cite in the article's "Brain size" section. However, that section actually is not one of the sections that cites Nisbett, so I don't think it will be helpful for reducing the undue weight given to him.

I recently put some time into reviewing this article's citations to Intelligence and How to Get It, and also the history of the Jensen material that has been removed, to make some suggestions about how to solve this problem. The article currently has 13 citations to Nisbett's book. Here is my opinion about what to do with each of them:

1: "Richard Nisbett, another psychologist who had also commented at the time, later included an amplified version of his critique as part of the book Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (2009)." It's reasonable for a history of the debate to include a mention of Nisbett, so I don't think this should be removed.

2. "The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care." This sentence has two sources, Nisbett 2009 and Cooper 2006. The Cooper source is adequate to support the sentence, so I think the Nisbett source can be removed as redundant.

3. "Nisbett argues cultural traditions valuing education can explain the high results in the US for Ashkenazi Jews (Talmud scholarship) and East Asians (Confucianism and the Imperial examination system)." This entire sentence (Cultural traditions valuing education) is just one sentence, cited entirely to Nisbett. I'm not convinced Nisbett's point is separate from the point made by the "Education", "Logographic writing system" and "Caste-like minorities" sections. If there are sources besides Nisbett that discuss cultural traditions valuing education outside of these other topics, then this section should be expanded using these sources, but I don't believe a one-sentence section cited only to Nisbett should stay in the article.

4. "A number of scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association, reject any genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps." This sentence is part of a paragraph that's a back-and-forth between Jensen, Rushton, Nisbett, Herrnstein and Murray. I don't see the point of it besides giving more undue weight to all of these authors. I suggest getting rid of the whole paragraph.

5. "On the other hand, cultural psychologist Richard Nisbett has argued that "(t)here are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen – either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks."" This sentence is contrasting Nisbett's viewpoint with Brace's, so we shouldn't remove one without removing the other. I'd be okay with replacing Nisbett with another source, or leaving this part alone for now.

6. "Dickens and Flynn argue that the conventional interpretation ignores the role of feedback between factors, such as those with a small initial IQ advantage, genetic or environmental, seeking out more stimulating environments which will gradually greatly increase their advantage, which, as one consequence in their alternative model, would mean that the "heritability" figure is only in part due to direct effects of genotype on IQ." This is cited to Hunt & Carlson and to Flynn & Dickens as well as to Nisbett. The other sources are more than adequate, so as with #2 I think the Nisbett citation can be removed as redundant.

7-9: The "racial admixture studies" section has several citations to Nisbett. These were originally part of a back-and-forth between Nisbett and Jensen, in which the Jensen material was later removed. I don't see the sense in this removal. Why did they also remove Mackenzie, which was a high-quality secondary source? I'm reluctant to remove the Nisbett material in this section because it offers a lot of detail that isn't in other sources (as far as I know), but I also don't think a single sentence cited to Jensen in three paragraphs of text was undue. It might be best to just change this section back to the way it was before the removal.

10 & 11: The "Mental chronometry" section has another back-and-forth between Jensen and Nisbett. I suggest removing most of the Jensen and Nisbett material (especially in the section's second paragraph), and replacing it with a secondary source such as Hunt (2011).

12 & 13: The "Policy relevance" section has two citations to Nisbett, and they are redundant with one another. It cites Nisbett for each of two sentences of the same paragraph, both of which are to say he thinks interventions should be better researched. I think we only need one of the two.

If other people agree with this proposal, The number of citations to Intelligence and How to Get It will be reduced from thirteen to six or seven, which seems more consistent with that book's amount of prominence. My proposal also will slightly reduce the number of citations to Jensen and Rushton, which might be valuable if the article has an undue weight problem for them also. What do others think about my proposal? Zeromus1 (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said the source was far from ideal. I haven't had time to go through them all systematically. Superficially at least I think most of your suggestions are fine but, personally, I can agree until I've had time to read through the specific sections of the article that would be effected. I won't be able to do this for a couple of days, I'm afraid. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say no to #2. The only relevant quote in Cooper's paper is: 'Abundant historical and social science data exist to demonstrate the impact of skin color gradients as a marker of social status. What Rowe would apparently like to do is dismiss the role of institutionalized racism in shaping the structural determinants of success in U.S. society, like the job, housing, and educational markets'. I don't think Cooper adequately supports the statement that, "The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care." He mentions lower birth rate weight but doesn't state explicitly that it has anything to do with prenatal care (although he clearly believes it's caused by social determinants). He supports much of the meaning of the first part of the sentence, 'more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors' but little else. If we're to replace Nisbett in this instance we'd need a better source for this statement. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The brain size topic already has it's own article. I would suggest updating that article appropriately, then applying the appropriate wp:summary style here. Adding new information here without first adding it to the main articles for that topic would not make sense. aprock (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, thanks for noticing that sourcing issue. What do you recommend? I can't think offhand of any high-quality secondary sources that go into as much detail about #2 as Nisbett does, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you know of one, we could replace the second Nisbett citation with it. Or we could change that sentence to say "more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors", and cite it to just Cooper. Either option would be fine with me.

Also, can you give an opinion about the rest of the changes I proposed? Zeromus1 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going through them as I have time. For the moment I'd be inclined to leave #2 but I don't imagine it should be so difficult to get another source to support that statement. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with #3. I can't find sources that would allow for an expansion of that section. If anyone else can, please chip in. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No. 4. I guess you could drop Nesbitt from this but I would have thought the genetic contribution to any putative difference in IQ between "racial groups" is kind of key to the whole argument? edit - perhaps use the Hunt evaluation of Jensen's and Rushton's estimate quoted by Aprock below? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No. 6. I haven't checked the other sources, but if what you say is true Nisbett can be removed from this.

Nos 7-9. I'd more or less return that section to the way that it was previously. I think the editing of sources to remove some sections was highly selective.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nos 10 & 11. I don't have Hunt's book so I'd like to hear Aprock's and Victor's opinion of this proposal.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nos 12 & 13. Agree - but I'd be inclined to rewrite that whole section. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me about most of these, but I'm not sure you understand what I'm suggesting in #4. I'm suggesting getting rid of that whole paragraph, not just the part cited to Nisbett. "A number of scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association, reject any genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. The American Psychological Association, while maintaining the causes of the gap are presently unknown, stated that "what little [direct evidence] there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." Jensen & Rushton and Herrnstein & Murray, however, argue that there is a substantial (50–80% in the US according to Rushton and Jensen) genetic contribution to the black-white IQ gap."

What does this paragraph accomplish? It's just rehashing what the rest of the article says about the viewpoints of these groups and researchers. I don't approve of how it says "a number of scientists" when citing Nisbett, Mountain & Risch, but lists the four hereditarian researchers by name. It would be more neutral to say "Nisbett, Mountain and Risch" instead of "A number of scientists". This paragraph also gives undue weight to Nisbett, Jensen and Rushton, while ignoring the views of researchers like Loehlin and Hunt who take intermediate or agnostic positions. Because this whole paragraph has so many problems, and appears to add nothing of value to the article, I'm suggesting the paragraph should be removed. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd regard that section as a secondary lede which should/could be used to summarise the broad positions within the field. The reason, I presume, behind referring to "A number of scientists" in the first section and naming individual researchers in the second is that the first is a mainstream stance and the second is not. I think it provides a good precis of positions prior to the more in-depth treatment which follows and also distinguishes between general positions held by bodies associated with particular disciplines and the position of individual researchers who are not mainstream. To argue for or against the phrase 'a number of scientists' you'd have to construct an argument as to whether or not it's a mainstream position in the sciences generally. Likewise with the naming of Jensen & Rushton. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either the hereditarian position or the 100% environmental position is mainstream. Victor Chmara made the point below that mainstream sources such as Earl Hunt most often take an agnostic viewpoint that rejects both of the extreme positions. Hunt's book also summarizes the positions of Jensen, Rushton and Nisbett, so this paragraph could be replaced with a summary from him. There seems to be a consensus that Hunt is a reliable mainstream source that this article should use more of, so maybe replacing the primary sources in that paragraph with Hunt's summary would be the best option. What do you think of that suggestion? Zeromus1 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

break

I'm not sure I understand the objections to Nisbett as a source. The current problem with the article is the undue weight given to Rushton and Jensen, to the great exclusion of more mainstream researchers. aprock (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Aprock, contrary to what you seem to think, "mainstream" does not mean "people who agree with me." Nisbett is a social psychologist who has never done original research on intelligence. He has never published a single article in specialist differential psychology journals. He has published a few polemical accounts of the race and intelligence issue, and is certainly not a mainstream intelligence researcher, or an expert on intelligence at all. In contrast, Jensen is about as mainstream as it gets. For example, his The g Factor is the bible of contemporary psychometric intelligence research, cited more frequently than any other work in the field. Rushton, too, was widely published in specialist journals, and, IIRC, sat on the editorial boards of Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences. Non-mainstream researchers do not have such credentials.

The problem with this article is that some people want to exclude certain arguments and certain lines of evidence even though they are reported in reliable sources. Ideally, this article would give an impartial account of all the relevant evidence and all the various arguments and counter-arguments that researchers with different perspectives have put forth. Inevitably, Jensen and his coauthors are going to feature prominently in a neutrally written article, because race and intelligence as a topic of scientific research exists today largely because of Jensen's work. For example, it's bizarre to suggest that Nisbett's views should have a prominent place in the article but not Jensen's, considering that most of Nisbett's work on this topic is explicitly about countering Jensen's arguments.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Aprock, contrary to what you seem to think, "mainstream" does not mean "people who agree with me." If you're going to preface your remarks with a gross assumption of bad faith, do you really think anyone is going to take you seriously? I suggest you strike that remark. aprock (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

When you're claiming that someone is or isn't mainstream, you're expected to back up the claim with sources. Otherwise it's just your personal opinion. Of course, this is far from the first time you've attempted to have Jensen or others written off in a similarly cavalier way.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Rushton and Jensen's conclusions are not in the mainstream is not a personal opinion. The status of their research done by Rushton and Jensen has been hashed over multiple times on the talk pages here. The most relevant place to review would be [17] and [18]. To date, there is no direct evidence or even a proposed mechanism which suggest that the achievement gap among races is due to genetics. If you review tertiary sources like Hunt's Human Intelligenc, he is quite clear about the validity of their conclusions:

The 80% default hypothesis [of genetic contribution to racial differences poposed by Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn] is an extreme and excessively precise statement. It is based on the assumption that factors that contribute to the between-group differences are the same factors that contribute to within-group differences. This is doubtful... The evidence required to quantify the relative differences is lacking.[pg 434] The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence.[pg 447].

You'll find similar assessments from any other mainstream tertiary source. See also chapter 15 of The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. aprock (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The status of the hereditarian view has indeed been hashed over many times, and never has anyone been able to demonstrate that it does not deserve a prominent place in this article. The attempt to marginalize the views of people like Jensen contravenes WP:NPOV, because Jensen is very prominently featured in reliable sources. Hunt, for example, while not endorsing Jensen's "default hypothesis", discusses Jensen's views at length, and also rejects Nisbett's views ("Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true"). Hunt explicitly refuses to endorse either of the "extreme" hypotheses about the causes of racial differences, which is what we should do in this article, too. Hunt's concluding chapter in the The Cambridge Handbook also gives a thorough trashing to the sort of obscurantist views presented by Daley (who?) and Onwuegbuzie (who?) in their chapter in the book.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No one has said Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) do not deserve a prominent place. What has been said, and the reason for the tags, is that the current weight given to their research, and their out of the mainstream conclusions, is undue. Regarding Hunt, I certainly agree that it is a high quality tertiary source reflective of mainstream consensus. And a source which the article should broadly reflect. The extensive hashing over primary sources (as has been occurring above) ahead of tertiary and secondary sources is precisely what need avoid. aprock (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there's agreement on the use of Hunt as a good secondary source and you both have access to this source can we use it to replace some of the primary sources in the article? There is, I think Aprock, a problem with the overuse of Nisbett's 2009 book which also needs to be addressed. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Aprock, you seem to be under the assumption that I want to add more primary sources, or that I want to increase the amount of weight given to Jensen and Rushton, but I haven't proposed either of those. I've proposed to add back one Jensen citation that was removed earlier, and also to remove two others currently in the article, so the overall effect will be to slightly reduce the number of citations to Jensen. I'm also proposing to add back one secondary source (Mackenzie) that was removed without a good reason, and to reduce the amount of weight given to Nisbett. If you think the article gives undue weight to Jensen and Rushton, it certainly gives undue weight to Nisbett also. Addressing the problem of undue weight to Nisbett doesn't have to mean we have to deny there's a problem with undue weight to Jensen. All it means is that we're addressing the Nisbett problem first, because Intelligence and How to Get It currently is the article's most cited source, and it shouldn't be.

Also, I agree with everyone else that Hunt is a good mainstream secondary source. I've already proposed that the Jensen and Nisbett exchange in the Mental Chronometry section be replaced with a summary from Hunt, and I'm open to similar proposals for some of the other sections. Zeromus1 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The only arguments against Nisbett I've really seen on this talk page are based on google scholar, which cannot be used to establish due weight. Given that it's a relatively recent tertiary source by a well respected scientist published for a lay audience, it's hard to see how it is out of place here. That said, it's certainly the case that we should also incorporate other tertiary sources like Hunt and Daley, while reducing reliance on many of the primary sources in the article. aprock (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Victor has a few points but no-one can really argue that Nisbett is an unreliable source. I'm not so sure that he's so central to the field that he should be the preeminent authority in the article. Also, I think it would be better if the article leant more towards 3rd party secondary sources rather than those most central to the dispute. If nothing else, as with the Hunt example above, there'd be a much better chance of achieving consensus. Plus, you'd have to look at the actual nature of Zeromus's suggestions which are, I think, pretty fair all in all. As regards Google Scholar, well, it's just an indication (and only an indication) of how relevant the scholarly field thinks a given publication is. But you'd have to drill down into the actual citations to establish that. And, of course, you'd have to look at the quality and nature of the publication. Good systematic reviews in secondary sources by otherwise non-interested and authoritative parties in each of the relevant disciplines would be ideal. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nisbett's oversized footprint here is attributable in no small measure to the impact of at least one on/off again topically banned user editing under two disclosed accounts who may have earnestly believed Nisbett provided "balance". That's because, in my estimation, his conception of how this article should be constructed is along the lines of "Jensen/Rushton say" and that he might pretend "NPOV'd" by a kind of "go through the motions" after-shave, or platitude, "What Jensen/Rushton say is not so." And Nisbett had a neat and tidy Rushton/Jensen "rebut" in a teensy appendix in his book that was overly cited to satisfy this fake-do NPOV. And thus Nisbett got cited to death about what he thought about Rushton/Jensen's ideas (which were the in his appendix!) Nisbett's not an unreliable source. He may be a ridiculously overused source, but that's only because so are Jensen and Rushton. Jensen and Rushton do not demarcate this topic. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)