Talk:Intelligence quotient

Style of article is both revealing and problematic

Nearly every section of this article that mentions a study that could suggest that 'g' is anything other than a perfectly inherited single entity is met with a curt closing counter point.

The style of writing in almost the entire article is basically this: "DISCUSSION POINT: such and such replicable respected study found that certain factors appear to influence, to some degree, scores. CURT COUNTER POINT: This is wrong because another study which is not replicable done by persons historically invested in g-factor research said it was wrong. END OF DISCUSSION NEXT SECTION."

The problem with this style of writing, apart from what it obviously reveals to anyone with "social" intelligence and "critical reasoning", is that each study and point is presented with equal weight. Which is very interesting when one considers the main and mathematically strongest criticism laid at the feet of strong 'g' proponents, which is that by arbitrarily manipulating the weights of certain factors, without changing the factors, one can arrive at a desired conclusion quite easily.

This article does not read like an encyclopedia article, it reads as a posturing defense of theories that strongly support a 'g' model of human intelligence. A lay person, after reading this article would be better prepared to argue why a 'g' view of intelligence is the accurate view of human intelligence rather than explain what 'g' or and intelligence quotient actually is. 68.7.65.150 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You're raising an important point. Could you be specific about which passages are biased in favor of the claims for a reified 'g' factor and how you'd propose to fix those passages? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

And since you claim that "nearly every section of this article that mentions a study that could suggest that 'g' is anything other than a perfectly inherited single entity is met with a curt closing counter point", we would need you to point out how each of the "other studies" used for the "curt closing counterpoint" is not reliable. I also would like to see your evidence that g is "perfectly inherited". We need a lot more than your opinions. We need reliably sourced evidence. Sundayclose (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

While I don't think the IP editor's comment is fully accurate, I do think there's room for cleanup. On a quick look through, some particular areas:

• General factor (g) - Could use better sourcing and removal of WP:WEASEL use of "still accepted, in principle, by many". I'd also suggest we should move the three-level theory out of the 'g' section and leave it in the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory section where it belongs (which is well written, apart from perhaps odd wording and needing sourcing on the 'g was earlier often subdivided into only Gf and Gc...' sentence). If this is cleaned up, I'm not convinced a direct rebuttal is needed if the final paragraph is cleaned up to indicate that Spearman's g, as he defined it at the time, is somewhat antiquated. Basically, direct the reader to the following sections.
• Reliability - ends with a critique of the scores (I updated this section, could use further improvement), and I think is reasonably fair.
• Validity as a measure of intelligence - I think this section is the best example of the original comment, as the end of a long list of critiques about whether IQ measures intelligence is a single WP:WEASEL sentence, suggesting the test "generally" has "sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes". Which purposes? What exceptions to that general rule? Are any of them directly related to IQ's measurement of intelligence (g or its sub-components), or is this sentence better suited to the Reliability section? Is there more or less validity for aggregate use on a cohort than individuals? I'm tempted to just move that sentence to the previous section and improve it from there, if not removing it entirely.
• Test bias or differential item functioning - Thoughts on moving this section underneath Reliability and validity and moving the "A 2005 study found that..." paragraph from the above section into this one?
• Flynn effect - Any reason not to include a quick summary of the Flynn effect in the Reliability section with a wl to the main article?
• Age - Suffers from some issues, IMO. Per the original comment, this is a section that reads clearly assuming that IQ = g. It's written that if IQ scores, despite all the variance issues listed in previous sections, can only exhibit age variance due to fluid/crystal intelligence. Which of course is silly, since IQ tautologically is normalized by setting 100 to the mean score for a given age. IMO, this section should describe the variance of IQ scores with age, not the variance of underlying general intelligence with age, but it currently reads as the latter. I also removed a 'however' which seemed to be trying to phrase the r correlates as 'good'. Should probably place meaningful context around these numbers, though. I'm an engineer that's reasonably comfortable with math and stats, but have no idea how to analyze these naked r-values.
• Health - Two cn tags from 2012, and fitting the criteria of the original comment. As above, I think it's worth trimming down to how health affects scores and how IQ tests are used in cognitive epidemiology, then direct readers to those specific articles.
• Crime - Wanted to point out this section as one that I found well balanced, and would suggest is a good example for the other sections. Shows historical links, but ends on modern critiques of causality.
• Group-IQ or the collective intelligence factor c - Doesn't seem to fit this article, as there's no Collective Intelligence Quotient test that I can find linked here. Let the main article be linked to from the articles on g et al.
• Group differences - Another section I think is written well, speaking specifically to IQ, not g while linking to articles where that association would be appropriate.

I made a handful of edits along my way. I think I'd like at least a little consensus (or at least, lack of disagreement) before I make some of the suggested changes. I also wouldn't claim to be qualified to make some of the edits. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a super thoughtful agenda for improving the article. Specifically with regard to folding "Test bias or differential item functioning" and "Flynn effect" into the "Reliability and validity" section, I'd been thinking along similar lines when doing a round of edits a few months back but didn't want to rock the boat too much all at once. Same goes for getting rid of (or straightening out) the weasel language in "General factor (g)" and "Validity". Since you've come to similar conclusions, that may be a good indication that the changes are indeed warranted. Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I began some updates, starting with the history section. Mostly just removing duplicate information, actually. Even the weasel wording in the g section ended up being cited in the CHC section so that was nice and tidy. I also did the grouping of all the error sources, tagging the comments above which I can't easily remedy. I'm wondering if Sources of error or Accuracy and precision would perhaps be a better title for the section. On the other hand, I suppose reliability and validity generally are just being given more specific examples in the added sections. Also tagged the old health tags and removed group-IQ (the latter I recognize may be contentious). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks great. I'd tend to agree with your "on the other hand," that issues related to accuracy, precision and sources of error are best presented as specific examples under the heading of reliability and validity. Generalrelative (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Gould doesnt accept Iq tests!

"Some scientists have disputed the value of IQ as a measure of intelligence altogether. In The Mismeasure of Man (1981, expanded edition 1996), evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould compared IQ testing with the now-discredited practice of determining intelligence via craniometry, arguing that both are based on the fallacy of reification, “our tendency to convert abstract concepts into entities”.[84] Gould's argument sparked a great deal of debate,[85][86] and the book is listed as one of Discover Magazine's "25 Greatest Science Books of All Time".[87]"

His personal opinion is not of any value to the subject, and should be removed!Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Gould's argument was that IQ tests are not a valid measure of human intelligence broadly construed. This is entirely consistent with current scientific understanding. See for example the quote from Wayne Weiten in the same subsection: "IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable." Note that Weiten's statement is WP:RS/WP:TERTIARY because it is from a recent, respected textbook, not an individual study, and therefore can be taken as representative of the field. Generalrelative (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:G factor (psychometrics)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:G factor (psychometrics). Generalrelative (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Online IQ Test Validity" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Online IQ Test Validity. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 20#Online IQ Test Validity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Buffalo8's addition

I suggest that Buffalo8 discuss the statement they wish to add to the article here. That statement, as they've written it, is When averaging across all test batteries, samples of male subjects typically display an intelligence quotient advantage of four points over female subjects. As I stated in my edit summary, I believe that in the context presented this misleadingly suggests that evidence indicates a clear case for male superiority in intelligence when the author (Earl Hunt) is explicit that this is not the case. Indeed, here is what Hunt has to say about precisely this issue within the page range cited: If men have higher scores on some subtests, and women on other subtests, then depending on the weights assigned to each subtest you could produce a summary score that favored men over women or vice versa. And it is certainly true that if a test battery omits an important ability on which there are male-female differences, then the balance of men's and women's scores in an overall index will be different than it would have been had the omitted ability been evaluated. Generalrelative (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As a side point, that figure of a 4 point difference is stated to be an outlier, present when comparing average male and female scores on two specific test batteries (WAIS-III and WAIS-R) and only in China and Japan; very far from what was stated in Buffalo8's edit. In the U.S. and Canada, male-female averages of those test batteries show a 2 to 3 point spread. But even still, the larger point is that the author considers this spread to be very plausibly an artifact of the types of ability measured by the test batteries in question rather than a real difference in general mental ability between the sexes. Generalrelative (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of context present in the Hunt source, the edit appears to be ignoring all research not mentioned/summarized in Hunt or conducted afterward, much of which finds no evidence of male/female sex differences in IQ. I am not 100% sure that a statement like Buffalo8's doesn't belong in the article, but I am confident that the WP:ONUS is on Buffalo8 to build consensus for the change instead of edit warring. Firefangledfeathers 13:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the statement as written doesn't belong in the article. If anything similar is restored the nuances of interpretation and additional related research should be included; and it likely should get consensus here. I'm not accusing anyone, but on the surface this edit gives the appearance of either lack of knowledge of the research, or intentional POV. Again, that's not an accusation, but we need to be careful to avoid the appearance of bias or misunderstanding. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

References

IQ Testing Reliability

"On aggregate, IQ tests exhibit high reliability, although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age."

This statement is meaningless without also including the significance of the variability. The scores vary, but the degree of variation is not significant enough to merit being used to diminish the overall reliability of IQ testing, relative to all other forms of psychometric testing. Standard IQ testing is the most reliable form of psychometric testing that there is.107.195.106.201 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, IQ is still suspect to errors. If your claim that it's the most reliable psychometric testing out there, then all other psychometric forms of testing are also suspect to errors in reliability and validity worse then IQ tests. 110.175.125.253 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please use your registered account Vpha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) instead of using this Sydney IP. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why I'm reverting edit citing Bouchard

First, the edit gives the misleading impression that Bouchard's estimate is generally accepted. The Minnesota Twin Studies have been criticized, and they're partially financed by the Pioneer Fund. Secondly, the 80% estimate goes back to Cyril Burt in mid-20th century or earlier, so it shouldn't be called "a recent estimate". NightHeron (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

A meta-analysis or review would be better, if one exists. BooleanQuackery (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

If it goes back to Cyril Burt, it should not even be called an "estimate". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Burt's estimate was correct. Leon Kamin found extensive evidence that Burt faked his data, see The Science and Politics of I.Q.. NightHeron (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you implied that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Short description improvement

Current short description: "Score derived from tests purported to measure individual differences in human intelligence."

My problems with it:

• Factually incorrect or ambiguous wording. The score is not derived from tests purported to measure individual differences in human intelligence. The score is derived from tests which themselves are not said to measure intelligence, but when calculated in aggregate they do. If instead this means different entire IQ tests instead of subtests, it should be changed to "score derived from a test . . ."
• The use of the word "purported" implies that IQ tests do not really measure intelligence: [1]
• The words "individual differences in human" are irrelevant for a short lead, and also not the most accurate. IQ tests don't usually measure differences in intelligence; they usually measure a single individual's intelligence. "Human" and "individual" are also redundant, as only humans can take IQ tests (lol) and more than one person can't take the same test.

My proposed changes: "Standardized score from a test designed to assess intelligence."

• An IQ test score is by definition both a standardized score and standardized in the sense that it is a normed test.

BooleanQuackery (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Some comments on the wording:

• There is considerable controversy about the definition of intelligence and whether or not it's meaningful to assess it with a single number. In his book The Mismeasure of Man Stephen Jay Gould criticized the tendency to reify intelligence. We should not assert in wikivoice that something is a measure of intelligence. By using the word purported, we avoid taking a position on whether or not IQ measures intelligence.
• The commonly understood use of the word standardized is in the term standardized tests, meaning tests - such as IQ tests, the SAT in the U.S., and the tough college-admissions exams that are given in several Asian countries - that are given throughout a region or country and do not vary from school to school or city to city. In this context it is confusing to call the score standardized. What's meant is that the score is normalized so that it conforms to the normal distribution. This technical detail doesn't belong in the short description, especially since the average reader won't understand standardized to mean that the graph of the distribution of scores is made to look like a bell curve.
• I agree that "purported to measure differences in human intelligence" should be changed to "purported to measure human intelligence". Logically, the scores are purported to measure the intelligence of the people tested; the differences between scores are purported to measure differences in human intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• The word "designed" also avoids stating that IQ is a measure of intelligence, though it is consensus among scientists that it is.
• IQ tests are both standardized in the layman sense (given throughout a region or country and do not vary from school to school or city to city) and standardized in the "normalized" sense. BooleanQuackery (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• I won't debate the question of consensus here, except to note that a consensus among a certain subculture of psychometricians is not the same as a consensus of scientists.
• What I objected to was the term "standardized score" that you wrote, because that makes no sense to a nontechnical reader. NightHeron (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The "no evidence" statement

This is a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Heritability_of_IQ#Comments_on_sourcing_and_consensus, regarding the statement in this article, "there is no evidence for a genetic component". In the Heritability of IQ article, the same statement was recently changed [2] to something that I think more accurately reflects its sources, but in this article (Intelligence quotient) it has not been changed. I suggest it should be changed the same way in both articles. In the other discussion, Firefangledfeathers suggested opening a new discussion about the same statement in this article, and I'd like to know his or her opinion about potentially making the same change here. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A key piece of information that is missing from the above post is that this statement is in reference to racial differences in average IQ test performance. As far as I'm aware, this was first discussed a year and a half ago on the Race and intelligence talk page (specifically here and here) and I do not see any reason to revisit the consensus that was established on the matter at that time: the sources do support the statement that no evidence exists linking racial differences in average IQ test performance to underlying genetic causes. For those who are not yet aware, there is a very firm consensus on the topic which was solidified by a nearly unanimous RfC last year. Happy to improve the language of the article for valid reasons, but I do not believe that AndewNguyen has yet presented one. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And now Generalrelative has raised the issue at the Fringe theories noticeboard. [3] --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please change the sentence or remove it. It isn't consistent with the sources it cites. Nor is it consistent with sources such as [4] from the American Journal of Psychology, about the various lines of indirect evidence that the average differences include a genetic component. Mr Butterbur (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Russell Warne is far outside the mainstream. In particular, he contradicts the conclusions of the panel of experts convened by the American Psychological Association, whose report is cited in the article. NightHeron (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There's not an actual contradiction between the two papers. The APA report says that genetic interpretations of group differences have no "direct evidence", like all of the other sources cited for the "no evidence" statement. (In this article the statement is sourced only to Hunt, but the APA report is cited for it in the Race and intelligence article.) Here are the relevant portions of the APA report:

It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.

A later part of the report says that genetic interpretations have no "direct empirical support":

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

Definitely the emphasis is different, because the APA report emphasizes the importance of environment for group differences and does not say much about the possible role of genetics. But the report doesn't comment about the existence or non-existence of indirect evidence for genetic factors, which is the subject of Warne's paper, except for by including that subtle qualifier of "no direct evidence" when the report discusses this matter. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As Generalrelative pointed out, this issue has already been debated and resolved elsewhere, and the consensus of editors is that there is no meaningful difference between "no direct evidence" and "no evidence". Warne's abstract makes 5 claims about so-called "evidence" to support his belief that white Americans are genetically superior to Black Americans in intelligence. None of those claims are made by mainstream researchers, and none of them are supported by the APA report. For example, he expresses the opinion that studies of genetic variation between individuals provide evidence for a genetic explanation of differences in test results between groups. But there's nothing scientific about this non sequitur, which serious researchers reject.

As you well know, two RfCs in 2020 and 2021 concluded that white supremacist beliefs about race and intelligence are fringe. According to WP:FRINGE we do not give undue attention to fringe sources, such as the Russell Warne article. Please stop your attempts to relitigate matters that have already been settled. NightHeron (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion that Generelrelative linked to there were four editors arguing in favor of inclusion and three arguing against it. As I mentioned on the Heritability of IQ talk page, all of the additional editors that Generalrelative listed and pinged in this comment [5] were commenting in a separate discussion, about whether to include the word "current" before "scientific consensus". So the view that "no evidence" means the same thing as "no direct evidence" never was supported by more than four people, two of which were you and Generalrelative.

In the current discussion there are four editors who support altering the wording, and it's four different editors from the three that who made that argument in the earlier discussion. In the earlier discussion the editors who supported changing the statement were Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph and Angillo, and in the current one it's myself, Ferahgo, Mr Butterbur and Firefangledfeathers. On the other side, the argument for keeping the statement in its current state has been coming just from you and Generalrelative, so this is a case where consensus has changed: WP:CCC. --AndewNguyen (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There are still people who determine consensus by counting heads? You should read WP:!VOTE and WP:CONSENSUS. I thought everybody knew those after editing for more than a few months. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing the statement per WP:ONUS might be the best solution. (Not the entire section, just that one sentence.) Generalrelative invoked WP:ONUS here to remove several paragraphs of longstanding content in the Recent human evolution article, when opinion was 4 to 3 in favor of the removal. In this discussion it's 3 to 2 against retaining the statement in its current state, with myself, AndewNguyen and Mr Butterbur all arguing against that, so the same principle applies. The sentence was added to this article without any discussion, and this is the first time it's been discussed with respect to this particular article, so there definitely has never been a consensus that this article should include it.

However, @Firefangledfeathers: I would prefer to know whether you have an opinion about this before I make another attempt at changing the sentence. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this article is a good candidate for a switch from "no evidence" to "genetics does not explain"; at the least, I'd be interested to know what is different about this article (vs. the heritability one) such that the proposal is inapt. I prefer both the status quo and the proposal over the suggestion that we remove the line entirely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: In the Heritability of IQ article, the "no evidence" clause was embedded in an entirely different sentence, and in that case I thought the statement was stronger without it. In this article, here is the language I'm advocating for:

While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, current scientific consensus tells us that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind them.

Here is the version that Ferahgo is advocating for:

While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, current current scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups.

Neither of those is bad but the first is, in my view, marginally more readable and informative. So I can only see two possible rationales for the change: 1) if you buy the view that the sources do not support the "no evidence" statement (already discussed in previous threads ad nauseam), or 2) if you think compromise here will provide some additional value, i.e. be an effective way to move forward collaboratively. Regarding 2, I would really love to believe that, but past experience in this topic area has left me dubious. Generalrelative (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's put me at 1b) I think the sources better support "do not explain". There are some other tweaks that might help:

• We can separate out a sentence like "There is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences."
• The next line could then be something like "The current scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain them."
• We should either reverse the order of the tidbits about race and sex or reverse the order of the subsections about the same.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. My fundamental concern here is that we do not acquiesce to the incremental restoration of WP:PROFRINGE content which existed in these articles prior to the RfCs of recent years. Generalrelative (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd like to leave this up for a bit to see how others respond. I share your concern. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Word. Generalrelative (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(ec) My concern about the version that Ferahgo is advocating for is that it is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. We intend it to mean that genetics does not explain any of the average differences in IQ test performance, but that's not stated explicitly. So it could be read as meaning that genetics does not fully explain, or that genetics explains only part. Opening the sentence to that reading would obviously please Ferahgo but would go against scientific consensus and violate WP:PROFRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point, NightHeron. Here is my updated suggestion:

While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, the current scientific consensus is that they stem from environmental rather than genetic causes.

We could then cite e.g. [6] (Intelligence science has undoubtedly been dogged by ugly prejudice. Historical measurements of skull volume and brain weight were done to advance claims of the racial superiority of white people. More recently, the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races.), [7] (There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences.) and [8] (Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin.) Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The proposed wording is fine, but the only one of these sources that uses the word "consensus" as required by WP:RS/AC is the Ceci and Williams paper. There's no need to cite the other two.

I'll make the proposed change and add the Ceci and Williams source. I won't revert if someone adds the other two, but I think they're superfluous. --AndewNguyen (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wording looks good to me. Thanks GR! AndewNguyen, I'd prefer to keep the other citations in, as readers are likely to be interested in both the facts themselves on causes of differences in average IQ and the consensus on the facts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Cool, done. Generalrelative (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sock drawer. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's definitely a consensus if you only take one side in a dispute as a source. Apparently, somehow, we've got to a place where scientific consensus is replaced with Wikipedia consensus. If there was even a consensus on Wikipedia which there wasn't. Bogestra Bob (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC) It's important to note that this is speaking purely about race and gender differences, not genetic heritability from parent to child. In which case yes, this is the modern view of group IQ differences. Do you have a reliable source for a contrary modern view? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC) @Bakkster Man: Before getting into a debate with this brand-new SPA, you may want to take a look at their contribution history. They are clearly not here to collaborate, and are very likely an LTA. I'd suggest saving your time and WP:DENYing recognition. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Definitely aware, hence why I asked only for a reliable source (not anticipating we'd see any source, let alone a reliable one). If they chose to se it as WP:ROPE, that would be up to them. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Sure[9] but the consensus among Wikipedia editors is that these experts are fringe: LOL. Bogestra Bob (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Folks, this is getting disruptive. And see User talk:Bogestra Bob#You need to follow WP:AgF where the reply to my telling them they need to follow AgF was "Sure Doug, I'm sure the problem is me saying "horseshit" rather than me saying things that go against your equality worldview" Doug Weller talk 11:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Ok Doug. Bogestra Bob (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Frontiers is rarely reliable, and this is a survey of the beliefs of researchers rather than evidence of a genetic component. That said, the results still show that the differences are primarily environmental. Genetics were the highest single response in most groups, but were always a minority compared to aggregate environment. Genes scored 15-28 for group differences, and the group with the 28 still had Culture + Education + Health + Wealth accounting for an impact of 54. Even your experts agree: environmental causes. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC) How can you lie so brazenly? Bogestra Bob (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Apparently this user has decided there is no need to follow WP:AGF. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) The "survey" cited by this user was discussed at length in the course of the 2020 RfC on R&I and elsewhere. The survey was conducted by one of the leading promoters of racial hereditarianism (Heiner Rindermann), who decided how to word the questions and whom to send the survey to. It had a low response rate, and those who responded presumably were those who wanted to cooperate with Rindermann's efforts to promote his fringe POV on race and intelligence. It's pretty much worthless as a source for anything. NightHeron (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC) And you're NightHeron Wikipedia editor. Who the hell cares what you think? Bogestra Bob (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC) @Bakkster Man: There was a past discussion at the reliable source noticeboard about a similar survey, which was published in Intelligence. The discussion there had no consensus about whether this paper is a reliable source or not. These surveys and other similar surveys also are covered in pages 258-260 of In the Know by Russell Warne, a secondary source published by Cambridge University Press. As far as I know that book has never been discussed at the RS noticeboard. If we're going to debate about the reliability of these sources, I suggest opening a new discussion about them there. It would be best if you did this instead of Bogestra Bob, because Bogestra Bob is either a sock puppet or a newbie who hasn't yet learned how to behave here. I don't mean to say that you should ask about these sources at the RS noticeboard, only that it would be better than sidetracking the discussion here with an argument that clearly will never resolve anything. --AndewNguyen (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Agree, the intent is not to litigate the source here. The bigger point is that the survey doesn't really relate to the topic at hand, as the survey's authors themselves state. They say it may be an indication that an empirical study could find evidence for it, but it's the empirical studies we're discussing. And that's why the wording of the article was clarified above: there isn't direct empirical evidence showing the source of group differences is genetic (ie. a 'smart gene' or cluster of genes), and most experts concur they're environmental. As for expert consensus, even this potentially cherry-picked survey suggests that the experts think genetics are (at most) a minority factor. I can't read the other survey you linked, but it's a good example of why a big portion of what makes a source reliable is what it's cited for. Maybe the surveys are reliable for expert opinions, but not for empirical evidence. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What was the problem with this edit? The "no evidence" statement appeared in both of these sentences, so if we agree that it should be changed, it should be changed in them both. The Ceci and Williams source had already been cited in the first sentence, so when we discussed adding that as a source while changing the statement, I thought it was clear this referred to changing the statement in the second location also. --AndewNguyen (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that now that there seems to be a consensus that "environmental rather than genetic causes" more accurately reflects its sources than "no evidence" does, it doesn't make sense to replace the "no evidence" statement in only one sentence and not the other. If others' objection is to the same phrasing being repeated more than once, I'm open to suggestions about an alternative wording that could be used in the second case.

@Firefangledfeathers: Would you be okay with us also replacing the "no evidence" statement with the new phrasing in the second place where that statement appears, in the first paragraph of the "race" section? I'd like to make sure we have a consensus for this change before I try restoring it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ferahgo: This may be one of the rare cases where you and I can agree. But let's establish the alternate wording for the second sentence on the talk page first. AndewNguyen's recent edit introduced repetition within the paragraph, as well as word-for-word repetition within the section, neither of which is optimal. If we can actually collaborate here despite our profound differences of opinion on the topic, that would be a very positive development. Generalrelative (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to avoid such proximate repetition. One possible way around it: does this section really need an introductory paragraph? Could we fold in the couple lines on race and sex into the subsections? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a good idea in principle, but I'd argue that this section intro is helpful, since I think many readers will want to read a few headline points and then skip the details. (I will say that I think the intro sentence on sex differences –– as well as basically the entire subsection on that topic –– needs to be revised to better accord with the current state of our article Sex differences in intelligence, but that is another matter.) Generalrelative (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I suggest. In the first paragraph of the "race" section, the last two sentences should be combined into a single sentence, which should say something like the following:

"After tremendous research done on the topic, current scientific consensus favors environmental causes of racial IQ gaps over genetic causes."

And this sentence would be cited to Ceci & Williams. Would that revision be acceptable? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The wording "favors X over Y" is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. For example, it could be interpreted as meaning that the causes are primarily environmental and secondarily genetic. How about the wording "After tremendous research done on the topic, the current scientific consensus is that the causes of racial IQ gaps are environmental and not genetic" (or "environmental rather than genetic")? NightHeron (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

We should also drop the word "current", which is redundant. What other scientific consensus could we mean? Putting in the gratuitous word "current" could be taken to imply that it's likely to change, and there's no evidence for that. NightHeron (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the article saying "environmental rather than genetic causes", but that was the wording proposed by AndewNguyen, which Generalrelative rejected for being too similar to the wording used elsewhere in the article. I was trying to suggest a way this part could be worded differently.

How about, "After tremendous research done on the topic, the emerging scientific consensus is that racial IQ gaps are explained by environmental rather than genetic factors"? "Emerging consensus" is the exact phrase used by Ceci & Williams, so that's truer to the source than "current scientific consensus" is. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait to see what other editors think. I think the word "emerging" is unclear, particularly since in the source it sounds like it was describing a transient situation at the time the Ceci & Williams source was written 13 years ago, and it is not clear how far into the future they meant their characterization of the consensus to apply. That is, what they said was "emerging" then presumably has by now fully emerged. So saying "emerging" in wikivoice in 2022 is not necessarily being faithful to the source. (Of course, the current version does include the direct quote with the word "emerging" as a note in the references.) NightHeron (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing these two sentences:

Despite the tremendous amount of research done on the topic, no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.

...with these two sentences from the lead of Race and intelligence:

In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.

For the latter sentence, we could use the same three refs as for sentence #1: [10][11][12]. For the "empirical and theoretical grounds" statement, we have many options, but I'd suggest including [13]: "[W]hile it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed. (I see that the R&I article still contains refs added by a block-evading sockpuppet [14], so we should reevaluate whether they belong there, but that is another topic which should be discussed elsewhere.) Generalrelative (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The second sentence is fine, but a claim as strong as the one made in the first sentence requires a citation to a cognitive psychologist or a geneticist, not a paper on which six of the nine authors are philosophers. I doubt a cognitive psychologist or geneticist would support such an extreme statement. Researchers in those fields who oppose the hereditarian hypothesis such as Nisbett, Turkheimer and Flynn (not a psychologist, but still a respected intelligence researcher) regard this view as wrong, but not as preposterous. Here is a quote from an article by Turkheimer, Harden and Nisbett: We believe there is a fairly wide consensus among behavioral scientists in favor of our views, but there is undeniably a range of opinions in the scientific community. Some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours.

Here is a quote from Flynn that was published in the New York Times: Take it from me, the evidence is highly complicated. The best we can say is that it is more probable that the I.Q. gap between black and white is entirely environmental in origin. (Emphasis in original)

I suggest that the first sentence instead say, In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, no specific genes have been identified that explain racial IQ gaps. That's a paraphrase of the Hunt source already cited for the first sentence, and it is a more accurate paraphrase than what that sentence currently says. --AndewNguyen (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

AndewNguyen, three points:

1) When we’re talking about language that has been present in the lead of a high-profile article like Race and intelligence for over a year, we’re talking about a considerable level of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. If you would like to argue that this statement doesn’t accurately summarize the content of that article or its cited sources, the appropriate place to do that would be on the Race and intelligence talk page. But if it’s good enough for the lead of that article, it’s good enough for a subsection here which purports to summarize it, per e.g. WP:LOCALCON.

2) You doubt that a geneticist would support such an extreme statement without realizing that two of the authors –– renowned biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes and Jonathan M. Marks –– are far more reliable as subject-matter experts in genetics than any of the psychologists you quote. If anyone doubts that, I’d be happy to walk you through their credentials specifically with regard to genetics. It’s irrelevant that several of their co-authors on that particular publication are philosophers. That argument is a red herring.

3) The psychologists you quote who argue that hereditarianism is wrong but not preposterous still attest to the fact that claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races are indeed broadly rejected by scientists (a fairly wide consensus) on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Indeed, it's in the title of their follow-up piece: There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes [15]. So it's not at all clear how you intend to use these figures to argue against the wording I've suggested. Generalrelative (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The amount of time material has been in an article is not a good argument. You recently rejected that argument when BooleanQuackery made it on the Spearman's Hypothesis article, in response to your removing material that had been in the article for several years. I also don't accept that a paper is an authoritative source about genetics because two of its nine authors are anthropologists who have studied genetics, and neither of them is the first author. Would you accept the authority of a pro-hereditarian source if two of its authors were experts in the relevant fields, but all the others were not?

There is a basic difference between saying "There’s still no good reason to believe X", and saying "X is broadly rejected on both theoretical and empirical grounds." The first is saying that X is possible, but that the current state of evidence does not support it, such as, "There's still no good reason to believe that life formerly existed on Mars." The second is saying that X is impossible as far as we know, such as, "The ability of anything to travel faster than light is rejected on both theoretical and empirical grounds".

Nisbett explains the distinction between these two views in Intelligence and How to Get It: Some laypeople I know—and some scientists as well—believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between the races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen—either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups. Nisbett then goes on to argue that the empirical evidence supports an environmental cause, not a genetic one.

Flynn, Turkheimer et al, and most other anti-hereditarian sources argue for this position, treating hereditarianism equivalent to life having once existed on Mars, and I can accept this article taking the same position. What I object to is this article taking the second position, which treats hereditarianism the same way as objects traveling faster than light.

I have another suggestion about how the first sentence could be changed, based on the blog post that you linked to before you shortened your last reply. That post described a genetic basis for group differences as "unlikely". I would accept the first sentence saying, In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, inherent differences in intelligence between races are considered unlikely. Would you accept that phrasing? --AndewNguyen (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is policy, whether you like it or not. I don't believe that I've ever argued against this policy, but if I'm mistaken please point it out and I will happily strike my remark.

Your discussion of Nisbett rejecting hereditarianism on empirical grounds (and his colleagues rejecting it on theoretical ones –– Turkheimer is one of these by the way; read the final section here) only serves to support my argument and undercut your own.

And no, I would not accept the phrasing you suggest because it completely misrepresents the cited source. Firstly, populations are not races. And secondly, the piece states very clearly that claims about the genetic basis for population differences, are not scientifically supported.

In any case, let's let others weigh in now. I have no interest in getting into a protracted debate with you, nor in responding to a never-ending Gish gallop. Generalrelative (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stalled, so here's another suggestion. The two sentences could be combined to say, "In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, current scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin." Perhaps user:Firefangledfeathers or user:Bakkster Man can offer an opinion? Mr Butterbur (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've got some concerns with the In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced part, because it could be read to imply that these group differences (particularly race) are inherently genetic. Perhaps an alternate wording that makes it clearer that past speculation about racial differences was based in antiquated views of race (arbitrarily assigned by how groups of people looked, prior to modern genetics debunked it). That and, as mentioned above, we should abide by current consensus that we clearly state there is no evidence for a genetic basis for group differences. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: The main point of the discussion here is that a lot of us think the "no evidence" phrasing is not sufficiently supported by its sources. This phrasing has already been changed in the Heritability of IQ article to more accurately reflect its sources, [16] [17] and it also has been changed in one part of this article for the same reason. [18] I'd thought that you were okay with this change, based on your comment here. The "no evidence" statement previously appeared in two places in this article, and we've already reached a consensus to modify it in one of them, but now the question is how to change the other one.

The statement in question is just 1-2 sentences, so it isn't possible for this statement to explain the whole topic. But if you're concerned the wording suggested above implies that human races are genetic divisions, how about simply saying,  In recent decades, current scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin? --AndewNguyen (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Most of those who have weighed in on the matter still agree that Hunt does support the "no evidence" statement, but to foreclose on endless debate I'm happy to remove it in favor of less ambiguous sources. So that's what I've done, substituting in [19] and [20]. I see no reason to continue to quibble about language that accurately describes the state of scientific understanding, i.e. that claims of racial differences in inherent intelligence are not supported by scientific evidence. Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

We've just spent several weeks coming to a consensus to change this wording. You agreed to this yourself in your comment here. Do you feel that it's appropriate, at this stage, to decide that now you're no longer willing to let it be changed? --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on previous suggestions, I propose the following: "In recent decades, racial categories have been understood as a poor proxy for human genetic diversity. [21] Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. [22]" @Firefangledfeathers: would this wording be acceptable to you? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If others prefer Ferahgo's proposal over the wording that I proposed on Sep 5, I can accept her wording also. --AndewNguyen (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing broad agreement on the line "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin." After that, I'm seeing a lack of consensus on what a second line should say. Is that an accurate assessment of where we're at? Can we replace the two lines currently in the article with the one line we all seem to support and call that an incremental improvement? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that replacing what is currently present in the article

Despite the tremendous amount of research done on the topic, no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.

with the single sentence

Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.

would represent an incremental degradation rather than an improvement.

That said, it's a small degradation so I'm not interested in devoting much more time to arguing over it. And other points in the section could still be expanded with well sourced information illustrating the reasons for the scientific consensus on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough! I misread your point above. When you proposed "While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, current scientific consensus tells us that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind them" was that in addition to one of the existing lines? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries, there are so many aspects to this conversation and it's been going on for a while. And indeed, I may be confused here myself. That suggestion was in reference to the first sentence where we discuss this issue, in the section intro to "Group differences". It seems to me that we've achieved consensus there for While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, the current scientific consensus is that they stem from environmental rather than genetic causes.. Now I believe we're discussing the two sentences in the body of the "Race" subsection which currently read Despite the tremendous amount of research done on the topic, no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap. I recently replaced the Hunt citation there –– which had been a point of contention –– with two alternate sources, in an effort to resolve concerns about whether the "no scientific evidence" part was supported. As you can see from the ref quotes below, both the sources I added make clear that the genetic hypothesis is not supported by science of any kind. I think that this is valuable material to keep in the article, though I'm open to discussing how exactly it's phrased. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep. My bad. Let me re-read the proposed language and new sources. If someone gets to it first, it would be nice to see all the proposed "other sentences" laid out in one place. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

My biggest concern about the two new sources for the current wording is that neither of them uses the word "consensus" or any similar word, as is needed by WP:RS/AC. The Birney source also is a blog post, and the source restriction says "only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers." The Nature paper uses the word consensus and is a high quality source, but it doesn't say "no evidence" or anything like that. If this article is going to say there is an academic consensus, it should say that consensus is about the specific thing that the Nature paper says there is a consensus about: a consensus that the cause is environmental, not a consensus about other additional statements. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The two new sources support the sentence Despite the tremendous amount of research done on the topic, no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. That sentence does not contain the word "consensus", so your point about WP:RS/AC is moot. And that sourcing restriction applies to the article Race and intelligence, not this one. Absent the specific sourcing restriction, there is no issue with the source being self-published, per WP:RS/SPS, since Birney et al. are clearly established subject-matter experts. Generalrelative (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I lost track of which sentence we were discussing, and I did not realize the sourcing restriction applies only to Race and intelligence, not to this article. Still, this is a sentence about the topic of race and intelligence, so wouldn't it be best to avoid citing blogs for the sentence in this article also? --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I would say that's an accurate assessment. Replacing the two sentences with the one would be an acceptable solution to me, but it isn't clear whether others will allow that change. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I support your proposal to use only the second sentence ("Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin"), and to replace both sentences currently in the article with that one. But you're welcome to make an alternate proposal, if you think there is another possible wording that's more likely to satisfy everyone. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm grateful not to be alone in having lost the plot a bit during our time away from this discussion. Having found it again, I no longer support the one sentence replacement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of the proposal I made above? "In recent decades, racial categories have been understood as a poor proxy for human genetic diversity. [23] Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. [24]" This was based on Bakkster Man's suggestion that the article should elucidate the relationship between race and genetics. The source for the first statement is a paper published in Science, so this sentence is better sourced than the current one, even if blog posts theoretically can be allowed as sources here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Ferahgo, maybe you could start by explaining what you feel is wrong with the current language, now that the Hunt ref we've disagreed over in the past has been replaced. To your point about the Science article, I'm not against including a statement like that at all, but I don't see why it should come at the expense of the current content. Why not simply add it to what's there? And while Science is indeed a gold-star source, that particular article doesn't mention IQ, so to avoid the appearance of WP:SYNTH it would be better to source such a statement to something that does. Indeed, Birney et al. [25] devotes an entire section to this point ("Human population structure is not race"). Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll try again to explain my own concern here. There are a large number of high quality secondary sources that discuss the existence of indirect evidence for a genetic component, or "circumstantial evidence" in the words from Hunt's book. These sources include Hunt's book, Flynn's book Race, IQ and Jensen, Rindermann's book Cognitive Capitalism, and Warne's book In the Know. And as I mentioned above there is another set of sources, including Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns and Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments that say genetic factors have no direct evidence, which subtly acknowledges the point made by the sources in the first group. It isn't clear why this part of the article can't be based on what any of those sources say on the matter, including papers from the APA's flagship journal American Psychologist and books from Cambridge University Press, but you think it should instead be based on a statement in a blog post.

Now that I remember which sentence we're discussing, here is my more specific objection: this seems like an attempt to find a source that supports what you want the article to say (if "not supported by science" in fact means the same thing as "no evidence"), even though it is a source of only mediocre quality, when we should instead be basing the article on the views given in the highest quality sources. Ferahgo's proposal reflects the views given by high quality sources including Nature and Science, and saying "no direct evidence" would also do that, as that wording is supported by the two American Psychologist papers including Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, which is a very authoritative source. These are the types of sources that the article should be based on, not blog posts. --AndewNguyen (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad nauseum and doesn't need to be relitigated again. Saying "no direct evidence" would be weasel wording because it suggests (but does not say) that there's "indirect evidence", without saying what that indirect evidence is supposed to be. None of the sources -- that includes the ones that use the weasel wording -- give any evidence whatsoever of a genetic role in the IQ difference. The consensus of geneticists is that a genetic role in the difference would be inconsistent with what we know about genetics, race, IQ, intelligence, etc. Please don't keep repeating the same arguments that have already been rejected by consensus. NightHeron (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine, this article does not have to say "no direct evidence". I was not actually arguing it should say that, I was just giving that as an example of a hypothetical wording that could be cited to higher quality sources than the current wording. My point is that it makes no sense to base the wording of this sentence on a statement in blog post, when much higher quality secondary sources are available, such as the sources for Ferahgo's proposal. --AndewNguyen (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

AndewNguyen has explained why it's better to replace the current wording rather than add to it, but Generalrelative raised a valid concern about it being possible WP:SYNTH for this article to cite a paper that doesn't directly mention IQ. So instead of the Science paper, here is another paper that could be cited instead. [26] This paper was published in Nature Human Behavior, so it's another high-quality source.

What this paper says about race and genetics is slightly different from what the Science paper says, so the first sentence will have to be slightly reworked to be true to its source. Here's my new proposal:

"In recent decades, racial categories have been understood to be only imprecisely correlated with human genetic diversity, and to be defined primarily by social and cultural conventions. [27] Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. [28]"

I think we're close to reaching a consensus now. Generalrelative has agreed [29] that this wording could be replaced if we find a suitable replacement, and also [30] that they are not against including a statement like this one. Therefore, this statement should be a suitable replacement. However, @Firefangledfeathers: I still would like to make sure this wording is acceptable to you before I try making this change to the article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The reference for your proposed sentence is written by an economist and a psychologist, so it's not clear that it's a good source for a statement on genetics. Moreover, the sentence is weasel-wording, because to many the suggestion that races are "only imprecisely correlated" with genetics suggests (without explicitly saying so) that genetics do explain some important differences between races, but not precisely. In popular usage, "correlated" is often interpreted as suggesting a causal connection. (If you tell your students "The practice of skipping lectures is highly correlated with low grades in this course," they'll get the message.) So the wording could easily be interpreted as saying exactly the opposite of what we need to say about genetics and race differences. NightHeron (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Kathryn Paige Harden is the head of the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab at the University of Texas, so a paper authored by her in Nature Human Behavior would be a fine source for this statement. As far as I know, there isn't any higher quality recent source about the relationship between race and genetics, if it must be a source that also discusses IQ. What the source says is, Racial and ethnic categories are correlated with genetic ancestry, but race is not reducible to genetics. The word "correlated" comes directly from the source, and we can't make this source say something different from what it does. If you wish to suggest an alternate wording for this sentence that is equally true to the source, go ahead, but our views as Wikipedia editors can't supersede the terms and ideas that are presented in the highest quality sources. --AndewNguyen (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

AndewNguyen has explained no such thing. They have based their argument on a vague aspersion ("seems like an attempt to find a source that supports what you want the article to say") but presented no concrete rationale why the content in question is either unreliable or undue. The blog post by Birney et al. is clearly an expert statement on the matter, and is in any case only one of two sources supporting the sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a third source to support the sentence, The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, who summarize in the book's conclusion: The available evidence reviewed by several authors in this volume provides, as Richard E. Nisbett puts it, "no evidence for genetic superiority of either race while providing strong evidence for a substantial environmental contribution to the black-white IQ gap." This really should be the end of the debate. Generalrelative (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative, please read my previous reply to you again. The current wording disagrees with most of the major secondary sources published about this topic since 2010, and I listed four such sources.

Regarding the new source that you've added, I agree that The Black-White Test Score Gap is a good source, but I do not agree that this source should completely supersede all of the more recent sources of similar quality that say indirect evidence for a genetic component exists. The 2011 printing of the book that you're citing is a reprint, and the book actually was published in 1998. See this excerpt where it says (C) 1998 at the bottom, and the book's actual publication year is also given at Amazon. You evidently are trying very hard to find a good source for this statement, but does it indicate anything to you that all of the sources you've provided have been older sources, primary sources and blog posts, while the sources that discuss the existence of indirect evidence include two books published by Cambridge University Press in the past five years? Looking at this overall balance of sources, it seems very clear that the "no evidence" statement does not have wide support in recent secondary sources.

When sources disagree with one another in this way, it is best for the article to say something that can be supported by the highest quality sources or by a majority of recent sources, such as that the differences are most widely understood to have an environmental cause. This communicates the "correct" message, and it also gives priority to a source of the highest quality (a 2009 paper published in Nature), as should be done. --AndewNguyen (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Has it even occured to you that you may not like it if others were to characterize what you evidently are trying very hard to do? It really wouldn't be a flattering picture. I'm afraid that your insistence on doing so to me –– despite having been asked to stop [31] –– means that my patience with you is at an end. Good luck convincing others that Heiner Rindermann and Russell Warne (your "two books published by Cambridge University Press") represent mainstream science on the matter. I'll be here to revert changes that go against consensus and to weigh in as briefly as possible when necessary. It's too bad though; there really did appear to be a moment when compromise was possible. Generalrelative (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree that this source should completely supersede all of the more recent sources of similar quality that say indirect evidence for a genetic component exists It's attributed to Nisbett. How does that override anything?

Regarding "indirect evidence", please consider homeopathy as an example. There is no reason why it should work, and there is no evidence that it does. But actually, there is evidence, it is only very bad evidence. Also, there is indirect evidence, very indirect evidence that does not help at all. So, strictly speaking, the sentence "there is no evidence" in incorrect, but taking into account the totality of it, one can safely say "there is no evidence". There is an implicit addition "except, of course, all the bad evidence you expect to be there when something is false but people try to find something because they really want it to be true."

We always have "evidence" for false ideas. Scientists know that. Saying that "there is evidence" when the evidence is not good enough will give laypeople the wrong idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, no one is currently arguing that this article should say "there is evidence" (although there are some sources that say that). The question is whether the article should say no scientific evidence has emerged in Wikipedia's voice, not attributed to anyone, or should say the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups. My argument is that the sourcing for the second potential statement is much stronger. --AndewNguyen (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No reason not to have both. With the "no evidence" statement attributed to Nisbett. So that readers can see where the consensus comes from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Refs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References |}