Talk:Race and intelligence

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

Please place new messages at bottom of page.

in re Caste-like minorities

Odd, but I happen to be in an uper-caste (according to the chart), yet I find this crap to be offensive. The presentation gives way too much weight to fringe bullshit. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment but think you could have worded it in a more civil manner. You have previously used the word bullshit on this Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:CIV - "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as, personally-targeted... etc." That wasn't personally targeted, so the civility policy is inapplicable. On the other hand, the point raised by Jim62sch is probably worth responding to in some way. Antelan^talk 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe my comment was just a truckload of dog turds. --Jagz (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not American, but I'll take the Fifth on this one!--Ramdrake (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else believe the Caste-like minorities table in the article to be offensive? --Jagz (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would make more sense to me to just summarize: the groups that the author of that book considers to be of "low caste" also tend to do worse than the "high caste" groups. The "castes" themselves need not be listed. Antelan^talk 20:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion. A few key example, such as examples that are often cited, could be listed in paragraph form. --Legalleft (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the 'Caste like Minorities" is simple: correlation is not causation. The authors argue that the higher caste has higher IQ scores. However, what if the higher IQ scores made them the dominant caste? There is no way to prove either way. This should be mentioned int he text. Am I seriously the only one who noticed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.28.104 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back Legalleft's edits

I rolled back Legalleft's edits, as I felt these were adding undue weight to the genetic hypothesis, and started again quoting Rushton and Jensen pretty much everywhere, and I believe there is consensus against that. I woul invite Legalleft to reintroduce his edits one by one so they can be properly discussed on the talk page as necessary.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Here are some of my specific concerns:

• Not sure why Encarta cannot be cited, as it is a WP:RS
• Personnally, no major objection to the Singer quote.
• The section on tests comes across as trying to attack environmental effects and defend genetic effects. Also, the test for X effect section seems a bit superfluous.
• The section on chronometric measures goes into too much detail and seems too speculative.

In a nutshell, these are the problems I see with these edits.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By point:

• Citing the primary authors words, in this case, the words which sparked the entire debate seems like an improvement. Also, citing another encyclopedia just isn't good form; especially in this case where hundreds of other scholarly citations are possible to get the point across. Either editor-written prose should be used or a direct quote -- no need to quote another copyrighted encyclopedia. Given that it is often argued that Jensen's position was misunderstood, a direct quote seem preferable in this case.* Great, I think it adds much needed context.
• Those are the arguments made which are offered to support the genetic hypothesis. If you understand the argument, Jensen et al argue for a genetic contribution by showing the insufficiency of environmental factors. You'll find I made extensive use of antagonistic sources as citations -- this is how Flynn, Jencks & Phillips, Loehlin (writing in Sternberg's book), and others describe the arguments.
• The chronometric measures are considered by several third parties to be the most important evidence because they come from outside psychometrics. They have been debated since the early nineties. The reason why Jensen is cited so much is that he's done so much of the research -- Jensen (1993) for the first chronometric paper, iirc.

In general:

You should restore my edits and work to improve them. Jensen's 1969 argument rests on two pillars -- a theoretical one based on heritability and an empirical one looking at putative environmental effects. I choose the most representative and highly cited examples of these empirical tests by looking at how Jensen's academic adversaries describe them. A topic is given undue weight when it receives more prominence than it deserves. I think its best to leave it up to experts, like the ones I cited, as to what's the proper weight to give these results. The metrics you used -- tends to support the genetic hypothesis and mentions Jensen -- makes no sense as a criteria for judging individual facts. Of course some facts support the genetic hypothesis, that's why there's a debate at all. Citing Jensen is just good form because he's the most prominent person with the view and has written several reviews covering all of this.

Put some elbow grease in and improve the text as I've tried to do. We're getting closer to the point where an average reader might be able to understand this article. --Legalleft (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Factor x:

Do you mean that it isn't explained well? If you think the common-factor / factor-X debate isn't important, then we have far bigger issues because that entire section is built around explaining that distinction, and how realizing it changes the expectation of what the environmental causes should look like. It essentially explains why the Flynn effect is such a big deal. --Legalleft (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jensen has no argument based on heritability. He is not a trained geneticist which may explain why he uses the word in a way that could not even be called a fringe theory among geneticists - he simply uses the word to mean something it does not mean in genetics. It would be like my calling my girlfriend "borderline" because she is almost a communist but not quite there. Sure, i can use the word however I want, but this way I am using it simply has nothing to do with psychiatry. Similarly, Jensen can use the word "heritability" anyway he wants, but the way he uses it has nothing to do with genetics. I have never seen a geneticist say otherwise. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SLR -- Jensen has no argument based on heritability. -- Your claim is mistaken at two levels. I suppose I should have addressed this in the section above rather than delaying. First level - this isn't molecular genetics. It's behavioral/quantitative genetics. The truth is actually the opposite of your claim -- a molecular geneticist has no expertise in heritability estimation. Behavioral/quantitative genetics was actually invented in part to study IQ. Jensen not only is an expert in behavioral/quantitative genetics but he was developed some of the mathematical methods used, and has published extensive on it. Many psychometricans are also behavioral/quantitative geneticists -- Wendy Johnson comes to mind. Second -- Jensen very much does base his argument on heritability. Massive amounts of text have been dedicated to examining this argument in the scholarly literature. The argument has, IMO, now been described very clearly in the article. Whether his argument is correct or not is a matter of POVs, which we should be able to manage. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned that the expanded section on hypothesis testing violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, at least, as it presents the genetic hypothesis on equal footing with the environmental hypothesis; actually, it even goes so far as advocating the genetic hypothesis. The previous round of RfCs, I believe made it clear that the consensus was that the genetic hypothesis was the position of a very small minority, even a fringe position. Slrubenstein also has a point that the hypothesis is championed by psychologists who, if they may be experts on intelligence are in no way experts on race or on genetics. Lastly as an accessory point, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is purported twice to support the genetic hypothesis. This is purely Ruston et al.'s reinterpretation, as the original authors originally said (and repeated in the follow-up to nthe study) that the results supported the environmental hypothesis rather than the genetic hypothesis.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, let's take this step by step. I think your points are logically valid but happen to be factually incorrect. Let me outline just a few. (1) SLR is wrong for the reasons I gave above. (2) Uninformed editors opinions about how common a scientific view is are essentially meaningless for us. If we simply wrote things by majority vote of editors, then Stephen Colbert's jokes about wikipedia would be true. The notion that the topic isn't worth discussing is itself a disputed POV (e.g. Turkheimer versus Flynn), and should be described as such in the article. Nick and I both seem to agree that you can't make sense of this topic if you simply leave out the genetic hypothesis. And Nick specifically disagrees with SLR on this point. Taking the position that material in the article should only support on POV is clearly an WP:NPOV problem. -- To spell that out more clearly. Consider that 52 professors signed a statement that the genetic factors might contribute to BW IQ differences and not long after a panel of 11 experts said there wasn't much [direct] evidence for that view. Who's side do you take? NPOV says we skirt the issue by describing the range of views. (3) Rushton and Jensen actually played no role in the MTRAS debate except to comment on it after the fact in their 2005 review. You'll notice that I included a description of the various interpretations of the data. You're free to refactor and rewrite as you choose, but MTRAS is a big deal for this topic. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also regarding Factor X - what it is and what it stands for isn't explained anywhere in the article, so a section on factor X actually is detrimental to the legibility of the article by non-experts. This article was going in the right direction yesterday by shortening or identifying some of the overlong sections, but this latest round of edits adds back cumbersomeness in the article; worse it reads as positively advocating the genetic hypothesis, a direct violation of WP:FRINGE for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Read this section: [1]. Please feel free to reorganize the sections for readability, but the common-factor / factor-X distinction is the key theoretical notion that launched Jensen and Flynn's debate, the Flynn effect, etc. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Legalleft, I do not see where I ever wrote "molecular genetics." I just wrote "genetics." And I was never refering to molecular genetics. If we limit ourselves to population genetics and its mathematical modles everything I say holds. jenson misuses "heritability" like many people misuse the words depression and split personality. The word exists and it has a clear meaning in genetics. jenson was not trained in this field and gets the term wrong. He is not expert on genetics or heritaiblity and his claims about them are as pseudosciency as claims that a professor of comparative literature may make about personality disorders. just because you have a PhD. in one field does not mean you are an expert in another field. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're just wrong. If you don't trust my word, consult Neven Sesardic (Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, No. 4 (2000), pp. 580-602). Holding and describing that POV is fine, but enforcing it as a matter of policy is not. --Legalleft (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, "In 1970 Jensen was a founding member of the Behavior Genetics Association. He has served as a consulting editor to both Intelligence and Behavior Genetics..." - from Miele's biography of Jensen. --Legalleft (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I m right. Sesardic is a philosopher, not a geneticist. I know of no evidence that his views are given any weight by geneticists. I think heis another example of someone with a PhD in a field other than genetics who wishes to pass judgement on genetics. in fact, his argument is as confused as Jensen's: according to him, Jenson suggests two kinds of heritability, that which explains WGD and that which explains BGD; moreover, the evidence for the BGD heritability is WGD heritability plus "other empirical factors." The problemn is there are not two different kinds of heritability, only one. If anything, Sesardic supports my claim, which is that heritability does not apply to BGD. Sesardic goes to pains to point out that Jenson supports his claims that genetics explains BGD because of "other empirical evidence." Heritability thus has nohing to do with it, it is simply not germaine, the question is, what is this "other empirical evidence" and Jensen has never convinced any geneticist that his evidence demonstrates that BGD are explained by genetics.

All the Sesardic (apparently a friend or colleague of Jensen's) really proves is my point that people without phDs in genetics should tread caefully when making claims about genetics. Funny, if a comparative literature professor makes claims about the power of Freud for explaining human behavior, psychologists react that people in literature do not understand pscyhology. Yet psychologists (and in this case a philosopher) seem to have no qualms about making bald claims about fields in which they have no training. that is pretty crappy science! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the Behavioral Genetics Society, I wonder what standing it has among geneticists? The editorial board of the journal is almost all psychologists. I mean, really, if they wanted to be geneticists, why didn't they go to grad school and get phDs in genetics? Or, if they believe in interdisciplinary research, why don't they team up with geneticists, leave the psychometrics to the psychologists and the genetics to the geneticists? Isn't that how interdisciplinary research is supposed to work? I find it rather funny, a bunch of people who claim to be doing research in genetics while disregarding the views of people with PhDs in genetics.

But maybe it is time to go to the article on Psychology and start quoting Leo Bersani and Jonathan Culler on the centrality of Freud! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another point, I could found a society called "The Union of Responsible Psychologists", and get every academic who agrees with me to join, but that wouldn't make me an expert in psychology. What is the standing of the "Behavioural Genetics Society" amongst geneticists? I not there is only a single result for a google search for "Behavioural Genetics Society".[2] Setting up one's own society to promote one's own work and point of view does not make that society relevant to the wider academic community. A search for Behavioural Genetics Society produces 257,000 results.[3] Alun (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand we do have the Behavioural Genetics Association, which does seem to be a proper professional body. There's also the BEHAVIORAL GENETICS RESOURCES site, which does not mention the "Behavioural Genetics Society" at all. Alun (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote, not what SLR misreported. -- "In 1970 Jensen was a founding member of the Behavior Genetics Association. He has served as a consulting editor to both Intelligence and Behavior Genetics..." - from Miele's biography of Jensen. --Legalleft (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC) --Legalleft (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the article link of Behavior Genetics Association, whose journal is Behavior Genetics. Here is the article link of Intelligence (journal). --Jagz (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, do you feel that your background in anthropology makes you an expert on the subject matter of this article and Jensen's qualifications? --Jagz (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What does your background make you? How does being a cub scout (or whatever you are) make you an expert in genetics or psychology? Thought I'd ask as you have several times complained about other's qualifications, while at the same time apparently having zero academic qualifications (relevant or otherwise) whatsoever. Alun (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was in the Scouts years ago but that is changing the subject. Do you feel that Slrubenstein's background in anthropology makes him an expert on the subject matter of this article and Jensen's qualifications? --Jagz (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not changing the subject, you actually seem to know something about being a boy scout, but you appear to know nothing about psychology or genetics. What is your expertise in the fields of genetics or psychology? Why should we accept anything you have claimed here? If you want others to justify themselves then why can't you justify yourself? Alun (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz seems to completely miss my point, or distort it - typical of his trollish behavior. I never claim to speak with expertise as a geneticist. All I have been arguing is that psychologists cannot speak with authority about genetics either. My only argument is that mainstream views about genetics come from geneticists. As to why I understand the concept of heritability better than many psychologists, the answer is that American anthropology comprises cultural anthropology, physical anthropology, archeology and linguistics. Although my own research is in cultural anthropology, as an undergraduate and graduate student I needed to take courses in physical anthropology. These covered the Darwin, Mendel, and the modern synthesis/evolutionary theory; primate behavior (including ethology and behavioral ecology); population genetics; paleoanthropology (human evolution based on the fossil record). The first two years that I taught anthropology to undergraduates, I taught four-field introductory anthropology. This means that in addition to teaching cultural anthropology at a graduate and undergraduate level, at a first year undergraduate level I had to teach the theory of evolution; the location of human beings in the phylogenetic taxonomy (including the differences between plattyrhini and catarrhyini, the differences between cercopithecidea and hominidae, and the differences between genus homo and other apes); human evolution; and basic population genetics (e,g, Hardy-Weinberg; clinal variation; drift; heritability). I wouldn't teach this stuff at a higher level - I can't tell the difference between jaws from H,. habilus and H. erectus and have not followed the debates concerning H. ergaster and H. rudolfensis, for example. But I understand the basic concepts and can have an intelligent conversation with my physical anthropologist colleagues, whether they specialize in primate behavior, paleoanthropology, or population genetics. And i appreciate the amount of training and research one must do in order to become a geneticist. That is why I would not make original claims about genetics, and am skeptical of original claims about genetics made by psychologists, especially when what they say contradicts (or is refuted by) actual geneticists.

I have never - never - claimed to be an expert in genetics, and I defy jagz to locate one sentence where I ever made such a claim. As with the usual ignorant and disruptive BS he spews, I am sure he will ignore this challenge. But the fact remains I have never claimed expertise in genetics. All I have argued is that claims about genetics and what constitutes mainstream genetics, fringe theories within genetics, and pseudoscience parading as genetics, should come from experts in genetics. I am curious to see how Jagz will change the topic this time, in order to continue disrupting this article and pushing his racist agenda. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT --Jagz (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that properly summarized, the objections here are that the field of "race and intelligence", especially in regards to the genetic hypothesis, needs to summarize the views of experts in all three fields: anthropology (for race), psychometrics (for intelligence measurements) and genetics (specifically for the genetics hypothesis). I think it would be a logical fallacy to posit as an expert on the overall question anyone not trained in all three disciplines. Since these people would be rare (if they in fact exist), while Jensen's (for example) opinion may be valid in intelligence measurements, I don't think his ideas as to how to define "race", or on the population genetics aspect of his work. What we are lacking here is the opinion of population geneticists and anthropologists on the question. Without it, the article is hopelessly lopsided, not unlike having creationists define what phylogeny is.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need to differentiate between the genetic hypothesis itself and the belief that the genetic hypothesis is true. I think there may be some confusion here. A belief in the viability of the genetic hypothesis and the belief that it plays a role are two different things. --Jagz (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A belief in something that doesn't play a role in anything is useless, no? Especially in science. A hypothesis must exist to explain something - to have a role; if it doesn't explain anything, then it serves no purpose.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Belief as shown here: [4]. The "researchers who believe that there is no significant genetic contribution to race differences in intelligence", however, are not necessarily rejecting the hypothesis. They believe that it is not significant or perhaps they are not convinced; this can be different than completely rejecting the hypothesis. --Jagz (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He is trolling, again, Ramdrake - don't feed him. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is actually someone who is trolling the article, it has been going on for years, and it is not me. --Jagz (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE does not apply to a description of the genetic hypothesis. WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints. --Jagz (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The genetic hypothesis is a viewpoint, therefore WP:UNDUE applies. What next, WP:UNDUE doesn't apply to creationism???--Ramdrake (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The genetic hypothesis is a hypothesis. Here is the definition of a hypothesis from the Encarta dictionary: "theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation", for example, "The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe."

A viewpoint is defined as: "point of view: a personal perspective from which somebody considers something"

Are you contemplating adding creationism to this article? --Jagz (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to understand the "scientific method" by reading one possibly inappropriate definition from an online dictionary. Please try to find a sensible source, such as a recognized academic text. A hypothesis is not necessarily a theory. In mathematics this is not the case; it is quite unlikely that an online dictionary would explain this point. However, it would be explained in many introductory textbooks on mathematics. I would expect therefore that the correct place to look is in the relevant academic literature, if you have access to it. Mathsci (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some additional definitions of hypothesis: [5]. Some additional definitions of viewpoint are here: [6]. The genetic hypothesis and a genetic viewpoint are not the same thing. --Jagz (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion must necessarily use recognized scientific sources. Dictionary definitions have absolutely no relevance; playing with definitions of single words is an unscientific semantic game. Surely an encyclopedia article must reflect what scientists are actually doing (in sourced articles and learned journals). Do you in fact have access to such learned journals or texts? As an example of the use of recognized sources in writing WP articles, I edited an article on a Bach Cantata using the definitive reference book by Alfred Dürr plus a full urtext score that I own (formerly freely available on the web). Isn't it important to identify a comprehensive set of proper sources before editing a WP article? In this case it involves trawling through the scientific literature as Slrubenstein has suggested many, many times. Online dictionaries are not particularly useful for writing WP articles. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think there is a "genetic hypothesis" at all. I think there is an hypothesis that the observed difference in IQ between people identifying as "black" and people identifying as "non-black" in the USA is partially explained by genetic differences (indeed I think Rushton and Jensen modelled a 50% genetic and 50% environmental contribution). I also think that this hypothesis rests on a belief in the existence of actual "genes" that specifically contribute to IQ, as opposed to genes that may be pleiotropic and confer a higher intelligence by chance, for example. So the claim is not for a "genetic hypothesis", the claim is for a partially genetic explanation for the observed differences. Jagz has demonstrated again and again that he doesn't even understand the basics of this, he keeps making claims that no scientist has ever claimed, and he keeps citing unreliable sources such as newspapers. There is no such thing as a "genetic hypothesis" and to claim there is just highlights your ignorance. Alun (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Genetic hypothesis": [7]. "Hereditarian hypothesis": [8] --Jagz (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC) --Jagz (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Here are some more. "Genetic hypotheis": [9]. "Hereditarian hypothesis": [10] --Jagz (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And more. "Genetic hypothesis": [11]. "Hereditarian hypothesis": [12]. --Jagz (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nope. --Jagz (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Biomedicine

Could User:Jagz please explain his unsourced sentence on biomedicine and why he twice attempted to add the same citation from an opinion piece in the Guardian making no mention of biomedicine? In this case it looked as if he was just reporting unsourced hearsay. Surely WP is concerned with reporting the current state of recorded human knowledge, with carefully sourced references, not the privately held beliefs of individual editors? Biomedicine seems to be completely unrelated to the current article. What is going on here? Mathsci (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence and its reference came from an earlier version of the article. I added the sentence back once after fixing the reference link. The second time I added two additional references, one of which used the term biomedicine and the other was referenced in the original reference. --Jagz (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, he is just a troll - just revert his silly or policy non-compliant edits. WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather be a troll than an asshole. --Jagz (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm sorry if you found it difficult accessing the history of the main page. Here is User:Jagz's original edit [14]. It was subsequently removed on 3 occasions firstly by User:Wobble, then by me and most recently by User:Jim62sch. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article essentially complete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, as another indication that the article might not be complete, this report [15] on ASPM and the evolution of the human brain together with one of its responses [16] might be relevant. It has been discussed in a fairly balanced way in the Independent. [17] Two of the scientists involved in the papers, Bruce Lahn and Pardis Sabeti, have WP profiles. This subject matter appears to be within the topic of Race and Intelligence, although the findings so far seem inconclusive. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Mathsci, WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Quit being yourself. --Jagz (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, please stop trolling. This doesn't work anymore.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are Blacks More Intelligent?

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting but the article is not really comparing races, it is comparing immigrants and non-immigrants. The two sampls are chosen because of geographic reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

there's no way that site could be used as a source, it's pretty blatantly biased. not to mention they claim the Egyptians were black. If this website counts as a source we'd better start citing niggermania.ws 76.25.115.99 (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Caste table

This [18] can be handled with a footnote below the table instead of a change to the table, which was taken from a book. --Jagz (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the section about genetic explanation

Hello, I added the following information:

Culture-only explanations such as stereotype threat, caste-like minorities and race stigma do not explain the low IQ of Africans south of the Sahara, where Blacks are in the majority. The Inuit, who live above the Arctic Circle and have higher average IQs than do either American or Jamaican Blacks even though their socioeconomic conditions are extremely poor.[89][90] [91]

Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean. Regression toward the mean is seen, on average, when individuals with high IQ scores mate and their children show lower scores than their parents. The children of Black parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the Black IQ average of 85, whereas children of White parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the White IQ average of 100. Black children from the best areas and schools still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators.[92] [93][94] Rubidium37 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, in a number of archives. Your additions promote Rushton and Lynn's theories as if they were gospel, which they aren't. There has been grave doubt cast on the accuracy of much of the "IQ by nationality" type of research, mostly due to the poor sampling methods used. Also, while Rushton disputes that the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study actually backs his genetic hypothesis, the very authors of the study interpret the results as saying just the opposite. Therefore, this presents a misleading, rather one-sided view of some of the data and represents undue weight.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add anything new about the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study or "IQ by nationality". The information is about the the impact of socioeconomic status on IQ differentials between races. The fact that the children of poor whites outperform the children of wealthy blacks is very important and should be mentioned in the article. Both genetic and culture-only explanations should be included. Rubidium37 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, you're not being funny by trying to be someone else.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not me. I'm done with editing this article for the year as I mentioned. --Jagz (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for input Jagz, we will see you in a year.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What if the genetic hypothesis is mentioned in other online wiki encyclopedias? Don't fall into complacency. --Jagz (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm quite sure we don't want to follow Conservapedia's lead...--Ramdrake (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I will add the information now. Rubidium37 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Please discuss on the talk page and gain consensus there prior to reintroducing.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is not accurate please provide an alternative viewpoint and an appropriate citation. I suggest as a compromise that both viewpoints should be included. Rubidium37 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate for the following reason: it presents IQ differences by nationality as a proven fact, when in fact it is at least highly disputed, and for the most part the methodology used to obtain these results has been discredited. Then, it presents on Rushton's viewpoint on the MTAS, totally oblivious to the fact that the very authors of the study say that this goes counter to the conclusions they reach. Lastly, by increasing the importance of the opinions of a very small minority of researchers (scientists who are fundees of the Pioneer Fund), it give undue weight to the opinion of a very small but very vocal minority.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not even mention the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study or "IQ differences by nationality". Because your argument is a strawman I will restore the material. Rubidium37 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the studies you are mentioning (even though you don't mention them by name) are the studies of Rushton and Lynn on IQ by nationality for the first part, and that of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. If you are refering to other studies, please kindly link them here, but please do not restore against consensus, as this will be your 4th revert, and will get you blocked per WP:3RR.

I cited "Berry, 1966" and "MacArthur, 1968" for the first part. My edit included complete citations. The source for the school performance of the children of the wealthy blacks was "Jensen, A. R.. The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998." Rubidium37 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Culture-only explanations such as stereotype threat, caste-like minorities and race stigma do not explain the low IQ of Africans south of the Sahara, where Blacks are in the majority. -Please note that this is taken directly from Rushton, one of the main researchers to claim that IQ varies racially and by nationality worldwide.

Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean. Regression toward the mean is seen, on average, when individuals with high IQ scores mate and their children show lower scores than their parents. The children of Black parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the Black IQ average of 85, whereas children of White parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the White IQ average of 100. Black children from the best areas and schools still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators. The basis for this claim is Rushton's reinterpretation of the MTAS.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You make silly claims which have no basis in fact. I won't even address them because they are just your misinformed personal opinions which are not supported by any reliable sources. If you provide a peer-reviewed article disputing the information we may include another viewpoint. Please don't delete sourced information as per WP:EP. Rubidium37 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is your sources which are challenged. The onus is on the editor wishing for inclusion to get consensus for his edits. Therefore, you must address these objections to the satisfaction of other editors. Your sources are mostly Rushton's work, which has been discussed at length and deemed WP:FRINGE therefore not a reliable source. Also, an you please quote the exact excerpt from WP:EP which you allege allows you to make WP:UNDUE edits against consensus?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law which qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:VERIFY.

WP:EP states:

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:

• rephrase
• correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
• move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
• add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
• request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag

Please don't delete sourced information in the future. Rubidium37 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake is the current self-appointed article sentinel, backed by the like-minded Slrubenstein. The only time I was able to make good progress with the article was when Ramdrake was out of action with health issues. Suggest you go to WP:RfC if you feel strongly about your edit. --Jagz (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein serves as the article's ad hoc chief of propaganda. Anyone who does not come around to his way of thinking is a troll and/or a racist. --Jagz (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you done yet with the repeated personal attacks? You've already been warned multiple times against making them.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

wow, that year went by fast!! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He does not have any authority to censor the article. The section about the genetic hypothesis is currently not good. It is too short and uninformative. Would you agree that the information I added belongs to the article? Rubidium37 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• ''Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean.

How does this make sense? from a genetic point of view the children of intelligent parents should be intelligent because they have inherited their intelligence genes. Any trait under genetic control will obviously be inherited by their children. Or to put it another way, the children of blue eyed people do not have brown eyes due to a "regression to the mean", they have blue eyes because they inherit them from their parents, their parents do not possess the genes for brown eyes. If the children do not inherit this trait then the obvious conclusion is that the trait is under environmental control. To claim that the observation that children of intelligent people are stupid supports a "genetic model" for intelligence is plain daft. It's basically claiming that these children are inheriting genes their parents do not possess. Indeed under this model we should expect the children of intelligent "white" people to regress to the "white" mean as well, which rather contradicts eugenics because we would never be able to stop this regression to the mean however many times intelligent people reproduced with other intelligent people. If intelligent people only procreate with other intelligent people, and intelligence is mainly due to genetics, then the children of intelligent people will always be intelligent. To claim that "genetic theory" explains the opposite effect is to show a complete lack of any biological nous whatsoever. If intelligent people have stupid children then this supports an environmental cause and not a genetic one. These wingnuts don't even seem to have a fundamental understanding of what genetics is. They seem to be implying here that genes are not transmitted from parent to offspring. It's frankly hilarious. Either Jensen is talking from his posterior orifice, or someone here is citing work they simply do not understand. I suspect the latter. Alun (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Although parents pass on a random half of their genes to their offspring, they cannot pass on the particular combinations of genes that cause their own exceptionality. This is analogous to rolling a pair of dice and having them come up two 6s or two 1s. The odds are that on the next roll, you will get some value that is not quite as high (or as low). Physical and psychological traits involving dominant and recessive genes show some regression effect. Tall people have shorter children on average and intelligent people have less intelligent children on average. http://www.scc.ms.unimelb.edu.au/whatisstatistics/faso.html Rubidium37 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to believe that two random gifted parents would be unlikely to have a gifted child but more likely to have a gifted child than two random non-gifted parents. --Jagz (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[19] --Jagz (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: What this article is discussing is a genetic hypothesis and not a genetic theory. A genetic viewpoint is not the same as the genetic hypothesis. --Jagz (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. Doesn't change the fact that it is WP:FRINGE stuff.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Material published in a peer-reviewed journal cannot be fringe by definition. Rubidium37 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, be more specific, what exactly are you saying is WP:FRINGE? --Jagz (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, this is about the twelfth time you're asking the same question, and you've been given an answer several times already. Therefore, I must conclude you're either repeating yourself on purpose or you're just plain unable to understand. I'm just trying to figure out if you're trolling or merely dense.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is: When you say it is "WP:FRINGE stuff", are you referring to the genetic viewpoint or the genetic hypothesis? If you want people to know what you are talking about, try not to use the word "stuff". --Jagz (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Ramdrake, I'll give you the quote directly from WP:FRINGE:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

Now please explain precisely what in this article applies to WP:FRINGE. Try to explain it without including personal attacks. Additionally, if you feel I have ever been given a precise answer to this then please provide the diff-link. --Jagz (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, after you have posted your explanation, here is a quiz you can take: [20] --Jagz (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whomever Rubidium37 was, I'm pretty certain he wasn't JagZ and I know he wasn't me. But somebody blocked the guy. That's not very gentlemanly. How does one go about undoing that? Also, on the topic just above, he was right and Alun was wrong. It's called regression to the mean, the history of which highlights the interesting way that statistics and genetics share a recent common ancestor, so to speak. --Legalleft (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Legalleft you don't even appear to have read what I wrote, or what Rubidium37 wrote. The Regression towards the mean article states that Regression toward the mean refers to the fact that those with extreme scores on any measure at one point in time will, for purely statistical reasons, probably have less extreme scores the next time they are tested.. That is not what what Rubidium37 said. What he said was that the children of high achieving "black" people will be less intelligent than their parents. The regression towards the mean article is discussing outlier performances that are not consistently repeatable by an individual, over the course of a series of tests an individual will produce a mean score, but on individual tests they will produce a few significantly higher or lower scores, but on the whole they will tend towards their mean test score. This is simple probability theory, throw a die a single time and get a six, this is not evidence that the die is biased, over a series of throws the die will tend towards the mean score, this will be true whatever the probability distribution. The same is clearly true of populations, a few people in any population will clearly produce extremely high average scores, but the population will always tend towards the mean, this says nothing about the children of consistent high performers, it only tells us that the population as a whole will tend towards the mean. This is a simple concept and I find it strange that you appear to be unable to grasp it. In a population with complete random mating we will expect the existence of any outlier highly intelligent people to be no more than the actions of chance. Because the population is randomly mating the descendants of the highly intelligent will tend towards the mean over several generations. But human populations mate assortatively, i.e. intelligent people tend to mate with other intelligent people. If we assume that intelligence has a high genetic component (i.e. not it's variance but it's cause has a high genetic contribution), then we must conclude that because intelligent people mate with other intelligent people their children are also likely to be highly intelligent whatever their "race". What Rubidium37 and you appear to be saying is that "black" people mate randomly, while non-"black" people mate assortatively, a spurious assertion. Alun (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rubidium37 was only reacting to the disruptiveness of another editor. --Jagz (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rubidium37 was being disruptive in his own right, so that's why he got indef-blocked.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, didn't a particular troll say he was going away for a year? I've been busy the past few days but it looks like Mr. Toll-a-lot just cannot stay away. Please, folks, can we stop feeding it? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather be a troll than the north end of a southbound mule. --Jagz (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

SL, I think that you've been denigrated to a step below a horse’s ass, but since you see J as a troll, then how could you be harmed by his opinion. Cease fire guys, you are both better than that. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be useful

Found this quote by Zack Cernovsky, himself a psychologist and a university professo (so properly qualified to judge this matter), about Rushton's work: Rushton's pseudoscientific writings perpetuate lay public's misconceptions and promote racism...Authoritarian statements "about the reality of racial differences," based on conveniently selected trends in the data, do not qualify as a scientific contribution. [21]

Maybe we could work this into the article? :)--Ramdrake (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cernovsky's paper was published in the Journal of Black studies which does not qualify as a reputable source in the field of psychology. Khurshid85 (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Journal of Black Studies is published by Sage and comes out of Temple University which makes it very respectable and it certainly is an authoritative source on racist science. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

@Khurshid85. The Journal of Black Studies has a Wikipedia article, it is also an academic publication. [22] Maybe it's not reputable for psychology, but this article is about "race and intelligence" and not about psychology. Since when were psychologists experts on "race"? The subjects covered by the journal are certainly relevant to this article. Alun (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This too might be useful: taken from [23] (Race, racism and anthropology, G. Armelagos and A. Goodman, University of Michigan Press, p.368) Although Rushton's work is both unscientific and racist, it is amazing that some highly respected physical anthropologists are fascianted by it.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)