Talk:Heritability of IQ

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Junheesin. Peer reviewers: Junheesin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

On Consensus About Heritability of IQ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article claims that there is a "consensus" about genetics not playing a role in racial differences in IQ, however, none of the sources cited claim that there is a consensus that this is the case. In fact, numerous reliable surveys and sources who that this NOT the case. Rindermann, Becker, and Coyle (2020) emailed 1237 researchers who had either published intelligence related work in an academic journal or who were a member of an organization related to the study of individual differences in intelligence and found that 49% of the Black-White IQ gap was caused be genes. Only 16% of these experts believed that none of the Black-White IQ gap was due to genes, and only 6% believed that the gap was entirely due to genes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301886

Similarly, Snyderman et al. 1987 emailed 1,020 academics in this literature, and the results were as such: 45% of respondents said the Black-White IQ gap was due to genes and the environment, 24% said there wasn’t enough data to say, 17% didn’t respond, 15% said it was due only to the environment, and 1% said that it was due entirely to genes.

http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~spihlap/snyderman@rothman.pdf

It is usually advised not to use primary sources, but not a single source that is either cited in the article or that exists claims that there is a "consensus" that the black-white IQ gap is only due to the environment. This is why I am giving primary sources as evidence to show that what is claimed in this article is not the case. In general, Wikipedia should work to establish reliable and neutral sources for claims, as opposed to simply stuffing poor ones that agree with a given narrative. Dashoopa (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Furthermore, there are several secondary sources as well that claim that there is not a consensus. Here is a massive literature review on heritability of racial differences in IQ which found that the group differences are between 50 to 80% heritable.

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOPSYJ/TOPSYJ-3-9.pdf

Hi Dashoopa, you have stumbled onto one of the most contentious issues on Wikipedia over the course of the past several years. Please see at least the last six months of discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence (don't forget the archives!), this RfC last year with ~50 participants, and right now this pending decision at AE. If you still have questions after reading all this I'd be happy to answer. But in short, the scientific consensus is quite clear: it is as stated in the article. And it will not be relitigated here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative Yes, I have read all of those: trust me, I'm not a newcomer to either Wikipedia or any of these topics. I already demonstrated through multiple reliable surveys of high sample sizes and secondary sources of massive literature reviews which show that there is not a consensus that it is entirely explained by environment, and most say that it is both. This is an indisputable fact, and not a single reliable source says otherwise. I understand that a lot of people come on Wikipedia in order to push their political agenda which doesn't usually have any form of scientific backing, but we have to be committed to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There is only one consensus on this topic and it is that there is no consensus on this topic, and any honest expert will attest to this. Dashoopa (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, this will not be relitigated here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow this and the RfC mentioned are an amazing encapsulation of science/reason getting consumed by politics/ideology in the 21st century. I hope the archival format captures the first decade or so of Wikipedia, so people know it doesn't have to be this way. FWIW, I completely agree with Dashoopa. This article should not proclaim "consensus" on "one of the most contentious issues on Wikipedia." Just scrolling through the RfC I see an enormity of lively debate and disagreement, both sides citing a litany of published evidence... And what is the central claim here? That IQ is hereditary, race is hereditary, but genetics plays NO role in any measurable IQ difference between races? It's quite a claim in its own right, but claiming there's consensus in the scientific community is absurd. If everyone who disagrees that such a "consensus" exists has some sort of semantic misunderstanding (the basis for disputing Dashoopa's cited survey), maybe the article should just say "many experts believe" instead of "consensus." The only reason why you'd want to keep "consensus" is to foreclose thought/discussion on the matter. 128.12.88.50 (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is not constructive. The word "consensus" in the lead is supported by lengthy earlier discussions and two RfCs, one last year and one this year. There is no reason to relitigate this. NightHeron (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dashoopa:- Generalrelative is right to insist that this question is not relitigated: the only way to overturn the RfC is with a successor RfC and that would be a waste of time. The point about Rindermann, Becker, and Coyle's survey deserves a response, however, for the sake of promoting understanding among interested editors. The unfortunate fact is that most "intelligence" researchers are, like most empirical scientists, deficient in their understanding of statistics. The RBC survey asked respondents to estimate the proportion of the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ that were due to genes as opposed to all factors. Note the term "due to": this is not a question of heritability, which is a statistically precise but hugely misunderstood observable, but of causality, which is only meaningful in terms of a causal model relating genotype to phenotype; with respect to human intelligence, nobody has credible instances of such models. The question can only be answered by (i) not giving a number (which is what I would have done and which the 15% of respondents who gave any answers to the survey did - RBC also said that many polled scientists responded to say they would not complete the survey because they didn't like the questions - the 15% were simply ignored in the 49% result of RBC you cited); (ii) basing the answer on "fantasy psychology", guessing properties of a imaginary model a projected future of the psychology discipline might produce, (iii) basing the answer on a model that does not work, or (iv) giving a number not informed by the idea of a causal model at all. The 85% of the respondents who answered this question appear to have gone with (ii) to (iv), which I don't regard as scientific answers, but it was a bad question and I could understand providing an answer based on a sense of politeness that prefers to give substantive answers even where good answers are not possible.

If you don't understand why causal questions need to be interpreted relative to a causal model before these you can hope to give a coherent answer to this question, then, like many intelligence researchers, then you don't currently have the understanding needed to interpret this aspect of RBC's survey. If you want to understand, I can help. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of citing David Reich?

I added a short mention about how traits influenced by genetics like cognition are expected to vary across populations, citing Harvard professor of population genetics David Reich in New York Times. Nowhere was race mentioned - simply populations. User:Generalrelative mentioned that this view is held only by minority of population geneticists, and pointed me to a RfC about race and intelligence, where Reich was discussed. The discussion links to a Buzzfeed article signed by 67 scientists that criticize Reichs article. However, there is no criticism towards the claim that traits influenced by genetics are likely to vary across populations. In fact, the critisim points out that we would probably find genetic differences between populations even if we would decide to define them based on rather mundane social factors, such as the sport clubs they support. It seems the criticism is not towards the claim that populations differ in heritable traits, but rather how we choose to split people into different populations.

So on what basis is Reichs claim that "and all traits influenced by genetics, including cognition, are expected to differ across populations" a "minority view"?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:1906:630D:E828:D194 (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's a rather straightforward explanation: [1].

Note also that any discussion of Reich's views on the matter would need to consider the follow-up piece in which he conceded that any differences between populations would inevitably be very modest, indeed far smaller than those among individuals, and that we do not yet have any idea about what the differences are. [2] Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

While Kevin Mitchells article is interesting, I am not sure how it proves that Reichs views are fringe? While these metrics are imperfect, Reich has over 10 times more citations and has published many more articles in much more prestigious journals than Mitchell. How do we decide that Mitchells views are mainstream and Reichs are fringe? The RfC is touching upon racial differences, not population differences.

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:1906:630D:E828:D194 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an important difference between minority and fringe. Reich's actual work is solid gold, but that doesn't mean that his more speculative views are widely shared –– nor that they have encyclopedic value in the context of this article. Generalrelative (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Btw Mitchell's article is just a particularly accessible and direct example. Here's another piece you might find informative: [3]. Generalrelative (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the article, but again there is nothing indicating that Reichs view are fringe and his critics represent the majority. In fact, Reich seems to be a more prestigious population geneticist (at least by number of citations and articles published in prestigious journals) than any of the authors of the articles or researchers cited in the Wiki article itself, so at least convincing case could be made that in fact his critics hold a fringe view.

I am not arguing about the merits of Reichs claims (doubt neither of us have the expertise to evaluate them), but rather your assertion that these claims are fringe and only held by a minority. What is the evidence that his views are held only be a minority? Not an article showing that there is criticism towards his claim, but that this criticism is shared by majority in the field?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:1906:630D:E828:D194 (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I have not asserted that his claims are fringe. Please see WP:FRINGE for more details on that guideline. And aside from the question of whether Reich's speculative views are widely shared, they are quite obviously speculative, which is why you will not find them in any of his many peer-reviewed studies. That's another important reason why they do not have any obvious encyclopedic value in the context of this article. And why we certainly cannot use them as a basis for stating in Wikivoice what "is expected". Generalrelative (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

He is not speculating - he is saying we "we should expect", that is not how a scientist expresses a view that is speculative. It seems that we can now both agree that his claim is not fringe, which I thought was the cited reason for removing it?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:CCBA:1BC:2A3D:90D4 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I am tired of repeating myself. Please go reread my edit summary and comments above. I'm going to stop responding to you now but my silence should not be taken as tacit support for this content. You will need to establish a consensus for inclusion by persuading others before you can re-add. Generalrelative (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

General Relative Deletes Science Papers with no reasoning.

Panizzon in one of the largest modern twin IQ studies establishes the heredity of IQ at 86%. General Relative deletes this citation repeatedly with no rationale and therefore should be permanently banned from this article. He is edit warring continuously by deleting real science citations with no rationale.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5D60:7920:5091:5113:979B:E636 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources wherever possible, and these are always preferred to WP:PRIMARY ones. (We can leave aside for now concerns about the reliability of the journal Intelligence when it deals with the topic of genetics.) I've replaced the Plomin study with a secondary source confirming the 80% number based on a survey of various primary studies. You are of course welcome to provide a rationale for adding an additional primary study, but as of yet you have not done so. If you'd like to report me for what you perceive to be behavioral problems, this is not the place to do that. Generalrelative (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Also: not a huge deal but I'm not a "he". They/them pronouns for me please. Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you can use a primary source. It's very common. Just make sure not to interpret it; simply plainly state the facts. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I also suggest that you self-revert since you are now past the 3RR red line per WP:EW. Generalrelative (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr. 2600, I read the source you listed. It's reliable and has a good methodology. I would support its inclusion, with the caveat that g is not the same as IQ. g will likely be slightly more heritable than IQ is, because IQ is a very good but imperfect measure of g. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments on sourcing and consensus

The no evidence/no direct evidence issue has recently come up again on this article, so I'll provide a summary of the issue for those who weren't already familiar with it.

This wording was first added by NightHeron in these two edits [4] [5] to the Race and intelligence article, changing the article text without changing the sources that it cited, while arguing [6] [7] that there was no need to provide a source for the new wording. The material was subsequently copied to several other Wikipedia articles, including this one and two others. [8] [9] [10] It was copied to these articles without any discussion.

Over the past two years, at least ten editors have raised concerns that the modified sentence is not supported by its sources, and/or tried to change it for that reason. These have included (in chronological order):

1. Insertcleverphrasehere [11]
2. Maximumideas [12]
3. Literaturegeek [13]
4. Amazingcosima [14]
5. Gardenofaleph [15]
6. Stonkaments [16]
7. Stevecree2 [17]
8. Myself [18]
9. Mr Butterbur [19]
10. AndewNguyen. [20]

If IP editors are included, there are another three who have objected to this material or tried to change it, bringing the total to thirteen. [21] [22] [23] Finally, when I summarized this issue to Arbcom in October, two of the arbitrators acknowledged there was a problem with how sources were being used. [24] [25] If the arbitrator comments are also included, over the past two years a total of fifteen editors have in some way acknowledged that this sentence is not properly sourced.

Some of the comments linked above have provided detailed explanations of how the modified wording contradicts the sources that it cites - particularly those from Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph, Stonkaments and myself. NightHeron has generally not engaged with these arguments directly, but instead argued that these objections are invalid and/or disruptive because the modified wording is required by consensus. He has made that argument here and here. But based on these discussions, and the fact that the editors objecting to the modified wording over the past two years have significantly outnumbered those defending it, I think that if there ever was actually a consensus for this wording, there isn't one anymore.

@HandThatFeeds: In your edit summary here you asked for evidence that sources are being misrepresented. Is this summary, along with the linked comments and discussions, adequate for your request? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:CONLEVEL: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For those unfamiliar with the wider consensus on race and intelligence, it is here: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. Generalrelative (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that 7 of the 10 editors in Ferahgo's list (#1,2,3,5,8,9,10) were in the minority of RfC participants in 2020 (see [26]) who voted "no" on the RfC's question "Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?." After that RfC was closed with a consensus for "yes" (that was overwhelmingly reaffirmed by a second RfC in 2021, see [27]), some of the "yes" voters made edits to bring articles such as this one into compliance with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Several of the editors in Ferahgo's list made strenuous efforts to stop these edits, often bludgeoning talk-pages and noticeboards. So Ferahgo's proposal to relitigate the wording and change how racial hereditarianism is described in this article is just a continuation of the efforts to circumvent consensus on this issue. NightHeron (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Please clarify two things for me.

1. Based on your comment above, it sounds as though you're saying that no matter how many editors object that this sentence in multiple articles contradicts its sources, and explain how it contradicts them, you're going to continue arguing that consensus requires it and reverting attempts to change it.

2. In your comment here, you said that whether the sources say "no evidence" or "no direct evidence" is irrelevant, because your modified wording is required by WP:FRINGE. I'm assuming that's still your position, so you aren't going to present an argument as to how your wording is supported by the sources it cites.

Are these assumptions correct? I'd like to know whether there's any possible benefit to arguing with you about this further. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I don't appreciate your caricatures of my views, and I don't think that a back-and-forth with you would be a productive use of time. NightHeron (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me ask this another way. What would it take for you to allow this sentence to be modified? For whatever reason, you've never been willing to engage with any of the attempts by other editors (Insercleverphrasehere, Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph, Stonkaments or me) to discuss the actual content of the sources you're citing, and you've also made it very clear that you don't want a RFC at a noticeboard about your use of sources. Now you've reverted a change that seemed to have clear support in the discussion below, without commenting in that discussion at all. If you're no longer willing to participation in discussions about the changes you're reverting, what options are left apart from another arbitration request? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This is false. NightHeron is among many editors who have engaged with you substantively on this topic for years. The fact is that the sources do not say what you want them to say, and the community has come to a clear consensus on this. We are long past the point where we are required to continue to indulge you, which is why you get "please refer to the existing consensus" as a response now. The issue is settled. Please move on. Generalrelative (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion here. In that discussion Stonkaments gave a detailed explanation of how every source for this sentence says something different than what it is being cited to say. In response there were a lot of arguments to support classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as "fringe", but no attempt to engage with Stonkaments' actual argument that this sentence is unsupported by its sources. After Stonkaments' initial post, the sources for this sentence weren't discussed there at all. The discussion was entirely about other sources, and how they supported the "fringe" label. The same thing happened in Ferahgo's RFC a few months later, where the discussion was entirely about the "fringe" label and the validity of her complaint itself, and there was no discussion about the content of these sources and whether they support the "no evidence" statement. Is this what you describe as the community coming to a clear consensus? --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, by the time of that discussion the issue had already been discussed ad nauseam on the Race and intelligence talk page, among other places (see this in particular, and note that some of the accounts supporting your view there are socks of neo-Nazi LTA Mikemikev which should not be given weight). The clear consensus was that the sources do indeed support the statement they are used to support –– that there is in fact no evidence for a genetic basis to racial disparities in average IQ test performance. This was later tied up with a nice big bow at the WP:SNOW-close of the RfC on racial hereditarianism. Further efforts to revive the controversy here will be ignored. Take it to a noticeboard if you'd like but this is not the place for it. Generalrelative (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that this issue can't be discussed at noticeboards, because every attempt to raise it there gets shut down before it can reach a conclusion. When it happened to my own attempt to open a discussion about it there, this comment implied other editors were expecting that outcome.

I'm glad you linked to that discussion from the race and intelligence talk page, so I can see what you were describing when you said "the community has come to a clear consensus". In that discussion you, NightHeron, Hob Galding and MrOllie supported the new wording, while Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph and Angillo opposed it. Describing a narrow majority of 4 to 3 as a community-wide consensus is very... strange.

If the "consensus" for this statement was indeed only the four of you, while in the present a total of more than ten editors have opposed it, there is no reasonable definition by which a consensus for this statement could still exist. You four appear to be the only editors who have ever supported the statement, and in most discussions the support for it comes exclusively from you and NightHeron. But it should be obvious that the group of editors who oppose the statement is far larger than the three who were active in that discussion. That discussion had no participation from Insertcleverphrasehere, Literaturegeek, Ferahgo, or myself. Unless there is another discussion you're not linking to where the statement received more support from other editors, you and NightHeron are in the clear minority here, but you can claim "consensus" in individual discussions like that one because the editors who object to the statement's sourcing aren't all active at the same time. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

AndewNguyen: Since you're apparently having trouble counting (and in case anyone uninvolved happens to stumble upon this), I'll point out that you've conveniently failed to mention that Guy (JzG), Aquillion, Firefangledfeathers, MjolnirPants and John Maynard Friedman also opposed your misreading of the sources, just in that one thread. That's 9 to 3. You then construct a counterfactual, imagining what it would have been like if you and others who share your views had been part of the discussion, failing to account for the fact that the overwhelming majority of the community opposes you (as evinced by last year's RfC). The same result would have been obtained from any representative sample. That is why you get nowhere when you complain at the noticeboards, and it is why you will get nowhere here. You are simply, demonstrably wrong about the science. Now please drop the stick and move onto other things in your life. Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed because that's pretty irrelevant to the heritability of IQ. Race doesn't need to be brought up at all. It's like arguing about racial differences on the heritability of height. Makes no sense; take race out. Keep that in articles which are about race. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I support totally removing the discussion about race in this article, in both the lead and article body. However, we also should address the issue of these sources being misrepresented in all the other articles that the same sentence cited to the same sources has been copied to. --AndewNguyen (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@BooleanQuackery: Your suggestion to remove the discussion about race sounds like a good idea. This would need to involve removing the last paragraph of the lede, and also removing the "between-group heritability" section. I normally don't support eliminating entire sections of articles, but in this case it does seem like the best option. There is a huge amount of current research and academic discussion about the heritability of IQ, and very little of it is about race, and yet this topic currently takes up over 1/8th of this article's content. Meanwhile the article doesn't even directly mention well-known topics in this area such as the Wilson Effect. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree. Definitely undue weight for a small topic. (And the Wilson effect should also be included and should probably get its own article as there are hundreds of papers mentioning the topic.) At the least it could be summarized to a much smaller size if it must be mentioned. BooleanQuackery (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a careful trim of material on race and intelligence, but the lead summary seems about as short as it could be, and I do oppose full removal. Discussion of race and IQ makes up more than 0% of the body of reliable sources focused on IQ heritability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: The underlying issue is the one raised here and here. In this article and others, sources are being cited to say something very different from what they actually say, and many editors have raised concerns about that. But NightHeron has already reverted one attempt to tweak the article's wording to match its sources, and has reverted similar past attempts by other editors. [28] [29] If removing the discussion about race altogether is not a good solution either, how do you suggest this problem be addressed? --AndewNguyen (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@AndewNguyen: This is what is called a loaded question. When you ask how do you suggest this problem be addressed? you are presupposing that two complaints which went nowhere were valid. But that is in fact a very tenuous assumption. Generalrelative (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There are some alternatives that I'd prefer to the status quo. Maybe something like:

• The academic consensus is that the existence of a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups is unsupported by science.
• or, The scientific consensus is that genetics do not explain IQ differences between racial groups.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be okay with the second option, The scientific consensus is that genetics do not explain IQ differences between racial groups. That's close to what this paper says: "most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences". Per WP:RS/AC, if the article is going to make a statement about academic majority opinion, it requires a source which makes a statement about that. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm with FFF on this. The wholesale removal of the content was obviously inappropriate and would never have survived scrutiny from the wider community. The fallacious move from "IQ is largely heritable at the level of the individual" to "between-group differences in average IQ test performance must therefore be at least partially genetic" is so widespread, and so frequently countered whenever the topic is discussed by actual geneticists, that some sort of discussion of this fallacy clearly belongs in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)