Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence

Initiation of Mediation

Welcome to the mediation for Race and Intelligence. I have reviewed the case and the preliminary discussion to the point where I feel comfortable with this case proceeding; further, all 3 "main" parties have indicated acceptance along with ALL of the others who are currently online. After many years of disputes, it is finally time this is put to rest. Using the issues presented and the policies of Wikipedia as my guide, I hope to guide all of you to a resolution that is fair and reasonable. I feel like the process the Mediation Committee uses for these matters is a good standard to follow. Below is a series of Ground Rules that I would like all parties to sign on to in the same edit that they add their opening statement. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions.

Proposed Groundrules:

1. Stick to content, not the contributor - This should be uncontroversial, since it is policy. Personal attacks will be removed by the mediator, substituting the following template: (Personal attack removed)
2. Listen to fellow editors, assuming good faith.
3. Seek consensus rather than continually repeating the same point.
4. Always work to find common ground rather than ways to support your, and only your point.
5. Do not make edits to the page that would contravene these discussions. Essentially, any issue in dispute, once resolved, may then be changed on the article page. Trying to argue on the page during this discussion would contravene these proceedings.

Acceptance of Groundrules

Please signify your agreement to the above groundrules by typing * '''Agree''' ~~~~ below.

• Agree Ramdrake (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Captain Occam (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Fences&Windows 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Aryaman (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree DJ (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree T34CH (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Wapondaponda (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• AgreeTechnoFaye Kane 05:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Ludwigs2 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Aprock (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Alun (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree mikemikev (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived: fresh start

ok, this is part of the problem I see in this discussion. there are certain key 'trigger' ideas that seem to call out for response from everyone, and so all discussions end up in a morass of competing ideas. I'd ask you all to try very hard not to give in to that urge. once I get this page set up, I'll try to make it so that there is a section for every point to be discussed, and I will probably get heavy-handed archiving comments land in the wrong section, just because we need to keep the conversations focussed if we want to have any hope of resolving this issue. so I'd ask you all, when you feel that urge to make a response, stop and consider whether you're responding to the right question in the right section, and resist the urge if you aren't. it will make things go much smoother.

we don't need or want to discuss these kinds of details here - this is a general setup section. let's save the debate for where it will do some good. --Ludwigs2 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

I am going to use a todo template in this section to write an outline of the structure of the article. we can edit it as we change consensus. it's probably best if you guys refrain from editing it directly - I'll change it as you all come to agreements about it. --Ludwigs2 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I just grabbed the current outline of the current page - FYI. --Ludwigs2 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I need some clarification, this mediation talk page is archived or not. I still see about 350kb of threads in this talk page. Most wikipedians have access to high speed connections, so 350kb isn't a problem, but a few are still in the internet stone age, and pages above 100 kb cannot be downloaded at such speeds. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll manually archive the above section today - sorry, I hadn't realized the page size had climbed that much. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed: data-centric model for article

I think you should stick around to give DJ's data-centric proposal a try. It would be a pity for you to drop out now, especially since you put the idea back on the table most recently. We've wasted a lot of time on unworkable proposals, but I see that as a positive, because now we know what not to do. If we can't get a workable idea together using this approach, I will agree mediation has failed. mikemikev (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The basic problem with a data-centric proposal is that there is no real data on genetic race and how it relates to IQ. As far as I can tell, every study relies on self reported "race" and uses no genetic measure at all. If this is to be an article on sociological race and intelligence, a data centric approach would be fine, but then the hereditarian hypothesis would be a very small part of the article. This is one of the main issues with the article. Some people want it to be about the data, which has nothing to do with genetic race, and others want extended discussions of how race and intelligence are related from a hereditary standpoint, something for which there is little hard data. Until we decide what the article is actually supposed to be about, the inherit conflict of data vs genetics will continue to plague the article. A.Prock 18:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't consider trans-racial adoption, twin-studies (within and between groups), regression to the mean, inbreeding depression, brain size, racial mixture, g-loading, and the correlations between them, to be 'hard data' for R&I? If you don't it's fine, just vote for whatever it is you want to do with the article. I think we aren't going to get consensus, we'll have to go for majority. mikemikev (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly they are hard data. But they are hard data about sociological race, not genetic race. I think an article about sociological race is a perfectly fine topic for the article. A.Prock 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, please read the Jensen & Rushton report to get an idea of what is actually being discussed in the literature in the way of data. Of course, Jensen & Rushton ultimately evaluate things from their perspective, and it's not a 100% neutral presentation. But it is a peer-reviewed and professional piece of academic literature which summarizes all the major studies which have been conducted over the last three decades.

It's time to put these editorial metadiscussions to bed. As Mike pointed out, and as several other editors have pointed out before him, there is more than enough to flesh out a solid, well-written and highly informative article if we stick to the data-centric approach and keep quasi-"doctrinal" interpretation of that data relegated to its appropriate section in the article. The main thrust of the present article should be that, despite the amount of research that has gone into the subject, we are not much wiser than we were before we started (which is, more or less, the same thing the Niesser et al. report tells us). In the interpretations section, the "100% Environment", the "100% Genetic" and the "50/50 Environment and Genetic" groups can be allowed to present their reasons for why they think the body of research supports their claims. That's fair to everyone, not least of all to the reader. --Aryaman (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, any data driven article is going to have to be about sociological race, and not genetic race because that is the nature of the data. A.Prock 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

for clarity: what would a data-centric version of the article look like? just so that were all sure that we're not talking past each other.--Ludwigs2 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To give a concrete example of what I have in mind, please review the article Race and crime in the United States. It used to suffer from the same problems as this one, and was hotly debated on the talk page, even being put up for AfD a few times. The main problems were the scope and the fact that several editors were not willing to split the data and the interpretations into separate sections. Once this was done, however - which was a small Wiki-miracle in itself -, the long-standing conflict over the article evaporated, and it has been dead stable since those changes were made, with nothing but a note of disapproval from a White-pride IP and a note of praise from a former contributor on the talk page since October.

The data has been sectioned off (sections 2 & 3) and presented in an interpretation-neutral fashion. Some time has been spent describing the data collecting methods, and those methods have been criticised where appropriate. The interpretations (section 4) are presented subsequently in the order of their prominence in the literature and the presentation is weighted according to support. The theories of causation have been presented in their historical context to provide the reader with the necessary background information.

I think taking a similar approach to Race and intelligence would go a long way in diffusing the editorial conflict over the article. If we can present the data neutrally (this is generally the rubbing point, as folks just love to caveat things they don't like, arguing on the grounds of some "responsibility to the reader" that said caveat is necessary), then I think weighting the interpretations section will be much easier and can be done to everyone's satisfaction. --Aryaman (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I commend you for the work you've done on that article. It looks like the strategy that worked there was for everyone but you to stop editing the article. It may be that a similar strategy would work here, but I expect since this is a more prominent article, that approach isn't feasible. A.Prock 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I honestly don't know how that happened. You can check through the archives for my numerous requests for other editors to become involved in actually editing the article instead of wasting time debating on the talkpage, but it seems that several of them were really only interested in arguing. The more edits I made to the page, all of which were solidly sourced and neutrally phrased, the quieter the debates became, eventually dropping off completely.

If it were possible, I would nominate DJ to do the rough draft of this article on the basis of community consensus. It's not really feasible for all of us to do it simultaneously, and he's proven himself to be both knowledgeable and dependably neutral. But that's getting ahead of were we're at in the mediation. The issue at hand is whether or not separating the data and the interpretations in the article will help to diffuse the editorial problems. For my part, I would be satisfied to see this happen - and, perhaps most importantly, I would not object to a much smaller sub-section on the "hereditarian" position provided the two are separated. Is it clear how those two things are related, or need I elaborate? --Aryaman (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

well, actually, that might be feasible, if it comes to it. I can imagine us all explicitly agreeing to let one person edit the article for a couple of days, on the condition that if anyone has serious objections with the result the entire couple of days work would be reverted. that can work: the one person editing has a strong incentive to write a version everyone will like, and it gives a chance for the big picture to develop without a lot of argument and cross-currents. but let's save that as an idea for the future.

I like the structure of the linked article as well - quick straw poll to see if that would be generally acceptable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as No consensus. Specific points addresses in other sections.

---

quick straw poll

Would you support modeling the Race and Intelligence article after the Race and crime in the United States article? use {{tick}} or {{cross}}, with brief comments.

— Ludwigs2

Y I think it encourages strict neutrality and will solve the WP:UNDUE issue for good. Aryaman (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Y It would be a step in the right direction. R&I is much more complicated than crime, for example where do we put inbreeding depression data, it's only really relevant to the hereditarian position. But we can cross these bridges when we come to them. We can focus on data common to both positions for now, and I think this will produce a decent article. mikemikev (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Sounds like a reasonable plan. But, given the two No votes below, perhaps you should consider re-starting the mediation by focusing on much smaller items that folks currently disagree on but which might be amenable to consensus? David.Kane (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

David, yes. I'm just letting this poll play out for a day so that I can mine it for discussion points. later this evening or tomorrow morning I'll close it as 'no consensus' and set up sections to discuss the problems, but I really want to get as many responses as I can to map out the lay of the land. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

N WP:POV fork, clearly an attempt to cherry pick data that supports a certain POV or ideology. Secondly, it is not immediately apparent who initiated this straw poll. I would think that the mediator should be responsible for initiating straw polls to ensure that there is some fairness. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The mediator did initiate it. A.Prock 17:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't sign, so it looks like Aryaman, as he is the next user to sign. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

my mistake, sorry. I'll be clearer in the future. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

N It's not clear that imposing structure will solve the content problem. We tried that exact solution last year[1][2][3]. In the case of R&C/US, what worked is that most everyone stepped aside to allow one writer to recraft the article. I might favor a similar approach of selecting a primary writer and an set of editors charged with pointing out problems, but not with actually editing the article. But at the core of it all are content issues, and until we can decide how to deal with those, I expect any large scale edits will not be successful. A.Prock 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Y The structure that VA came up with did an excellent job of stabilizing Race and crime in the United States. I think a similar approach would be useful here also, with the caveat that we should work out the structure a little more specifically before we begin editing. One reason for this is that presenting the data about race and intelligence neutrally will probably be more challenging than it was for race and crime, because in the latter case there were several college textbooks and at least one encyclopedia devoted to a neutral presentation of the data on that topic, while in this case the only thing we have that comes close to a neutral presentation from a reliable source is the two collective statements from the 1990s. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

interim page state

Q - What state should the page be in while we discuss this issue?

I'll see if I can find (or make) a template to the effect: 'This page is undergoing major revisions involving mediation'. that being said, we should make a choice about which state the page should be in for the duration of the mediation, with an understanding that it may be completely dispensed with at the end of mediation. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman: I'm completely open on this, for, as Ludwigs points out, whichever version it is, it can be changed at the drop of a hat. With that being said, I really do think it would be helpful to put the 2006 version of the article up for the duration of the mediation. My main reason for suggesting this is I think that version of the article contains a good deal of material and some creative solutions which could be of use as reference material while we're figuring out what to do. Aryaman (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The current page is fine with me. The 2006 version you suggest requires the creation of several new articles which currently redirect to R&I. I don't think creating a network of articles as a placeholder is the way to go. A.Prock 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Varoon Arya has persuaded me to not give up here quite yet, but the rest of you probably shouldn’t expect me to devote quite as much time to the discussions here as I sometimes have in the past.

Aprock, if you read the 2006 version of the article closely, you’ll see that even though it links to several sub-articles that elaborate on specific aspects of this topic, the main article still contains everything that’s necessary to provide an overview of it, so the sub-articles aren’t actually required if we’re going to use this version. The only thing that’s really missing from it are the references (which are in another sub-article), but it shouldn’t be a lot of trouble to copy those over to the main article.

In any case, I also approve of re-using the 2006 version of the article, at least for the time being. This is something that I suggested once before in October, and at the time Aprock appeared to approve of this suggestion. His own comment about it was, “Let me just say that I sympathize with this perspective, and might even be for reverting to the 2006 version you display here as a basis for improvement. The current article is a cluster-mess of blech.” --Captain Occam (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the suggestion is to move back to that article as a place to start redeveloping from, I'll happily support that. That's a separate issue from what we should used as the interim page until mediation is done. A.Prock 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the 2006 version could do with some modifications if we’re going to re-use it, although Varoon Arya and I would probably be satisfied with fewer changes to it than what you would require. It should be possible to reach a compromise here, though.

Ludwig, what’s the best way forward here? Aprock, VA and I appear to all agree that there are aspects of the 2006 version which could be re-used; we just need to determine what things about it do and don’t need to be updated. How would you suggest that we determine what the interim article state should be? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to be patient and wait for other people in the mediation to voice their concerns. Moving quickly on this sort of stuff only causes friction. A.Prock 03:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with aprock on the patience thing, but I'll make this suggestion - if you want to grab the todo template I added above (for establishing a page outline), move it down here, and then edit in the headings outline of the 2006 version, you can shuffle them around in virtuo, and discuss it as you go. that will solidify the ideas and give other people a visual reference for what you have in mind, which should stimulate conversation. once you have that outline ironed out, it will be child's play to go and do the actual shuffling around. --Ludwigs2 05:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

After seeing how much effort it’s requiring to try and resolve the mediation, I don’t think I have the time to devote to coming up with an interim version of the page that’s different from something which exists already. I guess that probably rules out the 2006 version, since that one would require some modifications before it can be used. Would it be a problem if we just used the version that DJ came up with in December, that we were using until Ramdrake reverted the article back two months on January 22nd? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been around a day since I proposed this, and so far nobody has commented on it. I'd like to make sure nobody objects to this edit before I make it, though. If anyone does, now's the time to mention it. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already spoken to why content from another article should not be used as interim content here. Again, I'd like to advise you avoid rushing to consensus, and especially inferring consensus from lack of comments. I'm about to leave for a week long vacation. I think you should avoid taking major action while the mediation process is ongoing. A.Prock 17:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, the purpose of this discussion was to come up with a temporary state for the page while the mediation is in progress. If you’re going to demand that no action be taken until mediation is concluded, then you’re rejecting the entire premise of the discussion that Ludwig started about this. Part of accepting mediation is that you accept the mediator’s way of handling issues like this, and in this case that includes accepting Ludwig’s decision that we can create an interim page state while we wait for the mediation to be resolved.

It also annoys me that you’re continuing to claim that Between-group differences in IQ was a different article from this one. As I pointed out before, you appear to be literally the only user here who thinks this, and there was a stronger consensus for moving this article back to its original title (Race and intelligence) than for anything else we’ve discussed in the mediation thus far. While you were edit warring with other users over this on January 11th-20th, three separate users were reverting your edits about it, and several more than that expressed disagreement with you about this issue on the talk page. I’m not sure what it will take to get you to accept what was decided about this, but when your unwillingness to accept it also makes you unwilling to accept proposals from the mediator, I think it’s pretty clear that you’re going too far.

Ludwig, I would appreciate your input about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I don't want to impose a particular version of the page. If we can't come to some consensus about the temporary version that should go there, I think the best solution is to throw up some kind of 'In Mediation' template so that no one feels like the given version has some particular value over any other. let me do that now, and if we can come to some decision about an interim version later we can act on it then.

My main concern is that I don't want this issue to distract from the more important task of reaching consensus on the final version. --Ludwigs2 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about any particular version. I do feel that using content developed on another page is inappropriate. I've also said that if Occam wants to introduce the edits on R/I, that's fine. The issue is the process. I'm not at all clear why Occam feels so strongly about using a version from B/G and is resistant to selecting some version from R/I. With respect to the consensus, it was to restore the article, not to move the B/G content to R/I. If we need to see the edits, I can show supply them. Regarding edit warring, it's Captain Occam who has been blocked three times over his edit warring on R/I, not me. A.Prock 07:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, let's stay away from the personal comments. I've added a mediation tag to the page (had to make one from scratch, dang it),so things are ok for the moment. My main concern with this (I'm tempted to say my only concern) is that we settle on a version that will not produce any contentions - The interim page should be something that everyone is comfortable with so that no one worries about it. let me make a suggestion: could we pick a relatively good version of the page, and then simply delete just the sections that are in contention? the page won't be accurate or complete, but what is there will have fairly broad consensus, and we can work the difficult sections back into the final version. what do you all think? --Ludwigs2 07:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, who’s been blocked over edit warring about other aspects of the article isn’t relevant here. The question is who’s edit warred over this particular issue—refusing to accept the fact that Between-group differences in IQ was the same article as Race and intelligence, under a different name. You obviously weren’t willing to accept what consensus determined about this back then, and it looks like you still aren’t, but the number of users who reverted your edits about this shows how many users disagreed with you about it. So if your claim that Between-group differences in IQ was a different article is the only reason why you aren’t willing to accept a version of he article that existed under that name, then that’s not a valid argument, because you appear to be the only user involved in this article who still believes them to have not been the same article.

“I've also said that if you want to introduce the edits on R/I, that's fine.”

Introducing these edits on Race and intelligence is what I’m trying to do now. Is there some particular way that you require this to be done in order for you to accept it? The way I’m introducing them now is the way that’s been suggested by the mediator, so I also don’t think you have a valid reason to refect this process. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up edit warring, not me. Over this particular issue, you're the one who was blocked for edit warring. If there was consensus to move to the B/G content, would you please supply the edits. All the edits I found were for restoring the R/I article. Using the version as is from the B/G article won't do as it removes all the tags. Beyond that I don't know what else is in it. But if you add the edits section by section I'm sure you'll get constructive feedback. With respect to a specific version, I'm generally open to any version from the R/I history from 2009. In short, I'm very very flexible with respect to what version is used, and am open to introducing individual edits from B/G. I can only ask that you try and be a little flexible yourself. A.Prock 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Every time I make this point, you respond to something different from what I’m actually saying. I know that there was not very much discussion about whether to move the BGD content back to Race and Intelligence, and only five users expressed agreement with this: Me, Mikemikev, DJ, Varoon Arya, and David.Kane.

Now listen carefully: the consensus was not specifically to move the BGD content, it was that BGD and R/I are the same article. This is what you keep refusing to accept, but when I discuss this with you, your only argument against it is there wasn’t an especially strong consensus to move the content back to this article. This is not the consensus I’m talking about. The relevant thing here is that consensus has determined that BGD and R/I are the same article, so all of the changes which DJ made to the BGD article can be considered part of R/I’s history also. Therefore, the fact that certain edits were made to this article under a different name is not a valid reason to reject them.

What you’re suggesting about introducing and discussing individual sections one at a time isn’t a possibility, since that would require the type of involved discussion that Ludwig is trying to avoid because of how it would distract from the mediation. What we need to do is find a version of the article that can be put back without requiring something like this. My suggestion is to put back the version that DJ wrote in December under the BGD name. The only valid objection you’re raising to this version is that it’s missing the tags, but those can be put back fairly easily. Will you feel any differently about this version if I put the tags back in it? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "As I pointed out before, you appear to be literally the only user here who thinks this, and there was a stronger consensus for moving this article back to its original title". So maybe you can see why I thought you were talking about consensus for the move, and not consensus that they were the same article. Maybe it would help if you could point me to the consensus, preferably the edits. And again, it might also help if you allowed yourself to be a little more flexible. My main objection is that you are tring to replace content from one article with another article. But if you can produce edits for a consensus the the December B/G article represented content that was meant for R/I, I'll happily review them. A.Prock 08:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure I pointed this out before, but here we are again. The three places this were discussed were here here, and here.

And here are the opinions that other users have expressed about this:

David.Kane: BGDIQ can hopefully stand on its own, but what matters most is that DJ’s edits to the article under that name should be preserved.

Muntuwandi: BGDIQ is a replacement for R/I, and an unacceptable one because its new title makes it a POV fork.

Victor Chmra: BGDIQ is the same article under a new title.

Varoon Arya: agreed with Victor Chmra, and also expressed agreement on the mediation page with keeping DJ’s edits.

Ludwigs2: suggested “moving things back to this page” (that is, Race and intelligence) from the BGDIQ article.

Mikemikev: agreed with me on the mediation page that DJ’s edits under the article’s new name should be kept.

Obviously DJ approves of his own edits, and I think they should be kept also.

I consider the discussion I linked to on the race and intelligence talk page to be the most relevant one, because that’s the exact place where edits to that article should be discussed, and there’s no question what conclusion was reached by the four users discussing it there. All of them agreed either that the two articles were the same, that the BGDIQ content should be moved back to R/I, or some combination of these two. Since the two articles being the same would mean that the edits to BGDIQ should be considered part of R/I’s history, for the purpose of what we’re discussing both of these views can be considered to amount to the same thing.

If you aren’t willing to accept this conclusion, I guess I’d recommend Ludwig posting a poll about whether Between-group differences in IQ should be considered to have been the same article as Race and intelligence. I’m pretty sure that almost everyone else here will agree that it should. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On the R/I talk page discussion the apparent consensus is that major edits should not be made during mediation with David.Kane, Slrubenstein, T34CH, Mathsc, agreeing. Even you implicitly agree by indicating that you think DJs edits should be allowed since they aren't major. I think that's a pretty reasonable position to take. The changes in the B/G article look like major edits, and as such seem to run against that consensus. FWIW, I don't see any sort of consensus on either the R/I talk page, or the mediation page, that the continued development of content on the B/G page represents the R/I content while the redirection page was in place. Finally, I'll point you to ground rule #5 above which you signed on to on November 14, 2009. A.Prock 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, the purpose of this discussion is to come up with an interim state for the page while we wait for mediation to conclude, and it was the mediator who initiated the discussion about this. By definition, what he’s suggested is probably going to involve making major changes to the page. I find it pretty strange that in a discussion started by the mediator, you’re claiming that it’s unacceptable to do what he’s suggested because this goes against the terms of the mediation. And if you really have a problem with this, shouldn’t your complaints about it be directed at Ludwig rather than me?

If your argument here is just that we should avoid making major changes to the article while mediation is in progress (which means not coming up with an interim page state at all) because this goes against the mediation rules that we agreed to, then I think it needs to be up to Ludwig whether or not the mediation rules apply to this also. Since he’s the mediator, whether this would violate the terms of the mediation is his decision. He’s the one who suggested we do this, so it seems pretty clear to me that he doesn’t have a problem with it, but I’ll let him address your concerns about whether doing this would violate them or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and data

Concerns have been raised about 'cherry picking' sources (particularly data-centric sources) to promote a particular ideology. Let's address that in this section. Wapondaponda, can you lay out the problem, please?

Ludwigs2

The subject of race and intelligence isn't part of the mainstream academic curriculum. Much of the data on the RI controversy has been published by just a few authors, chiefly Jensen, Rushton and a few other recipients of Pioneer Fund grants. Their publications are in the minority position in this controversy. A data-centric article would be heavily reliant on data from Jensen and Rushton and as a result, a data-centric article will give undue weight to the minority position.

The issue of a data-centric article has arisen because a data-centric model is believed to have introduced some stability to the race and crime articles. However race and crime is a different subject, and what may have worked in race and crime is not necessarily applicable to race and intelligence. Crime statistics in the US are published by government agencies. The statistics are hard facts that are quite uncontroversial. OTOH IQ test score data and its analysis lie at the heart of this controversy. AFAIK, the US government doesn't have much of an official race/IQ policy, but they do have policies directed towards the achievement gap. Race/IQ data is primarily of interest to a few academicians. In short race/IQ data doesn't have mainstream credibility or authority like crime data. I believe it is not yet possible to separate the race/IQ data from the controversy because the data is the controversy.

For example, Richard Lynn and others have published data that suggests that Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70. An IQ of 70 in the US implies borderline mental retardation. This data suggests that half of all Africans are mentally retarded, a suggestion that some find preposterous and one that even perplexes racial hereditarians. See also Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 74. I don't believe that it is appropriate to present IQ data with little or no context, criticism or analysis. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the scholars involved in R&I use solid external sources of data, such as medical, military, SAT. Please check the literature. If you want to stick around and specifically criticise any data we include your input would be appreciated. Analysis will follow presentation of data. mikemikev (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The SAT, and other proxies for IQ are not solid sources of data. They suffer from all kinds of intrinsic bias issues related to the way the data is gathered. One example, the population which takes military exams and the population which takes SAT tests are very different. One study (Lynn 2006 I think) used a 10 word vocabulary test as a proxy for IQ. When methodologies like this are used it becomes difficult to make strong conclusions. If a vocab test correlates with IQ, which correlates with intelligence, and the self reported race on those tests correlates with genetic race, the confidence intervals for how race and intelligence are correlated drown out any signal in the test. And this is before one tries to determine the effects of genetics versus environment. A.Prock 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These are criticisms which are made by participants in the debate. I know I'm belabouring an analogy, but the very same criticisms are made in the "race and crime" controversy, though directed at the way the data used to compile crime rate statistics is collected, processed and presented. These criticisms are presented in section 3.1 Data gathering methods as well as in the lead to the section Theories of causation. As long as we don't allow the controversy to affect the article's neutrality in regards to the presentation of information, we're safe. But if we start dropping data because people involved in the debate want it dropped, we've crossed the line into POV. --Aryaman (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Including data about average results when the standard deviations and standard errors indicate that there is no statistically significant result is not neutral. A.Prock 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about results published in reliable sources which have made their way into secondary literature. Of course, there is nothing standing in the way of presenting criticism of this material. But unless it's purely idiosyncratic flotsam, and recognized as such by peers in the field, we're not qualified judges of truth-value. Anyway, I think we're taking this further than the practical matter at hand requires. If we focus on concrete instances, I think we'd find that we have a lot we can agree on. Case in point: the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. This is a piece of research which has been extensively analysed and commented upon by both pro-environmentalists and pro-hereditarians alike. I'd like to think we could agree on the idea that this could be presented in the article in a neutral fashion prior to any discussion of how various scholars have interpreted the results. Am I terribly mistaken? --Aryaman (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think including information on the "MTAS" is perfectly fine as long as it's clear that study represents research into sociological race. A.Prock 21:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Muntuwandi's comments point by point:

• Claim: The subject of race and intelligence isn't part of the mainstream academic curriculum.

Response: On the contrary, mid- to high-level courses are offered at various universities around the United States discussing the topic of race and intelligence, particularly in the fields of Psychology, Sociology, and Criminology, as an issue relevant to their area of interest. The topic is presented in its socio-political context as a highly contentious one, as is to be expected, but it is not treated as "fringe science" of no relevance to mainstream academia. That is not to ignore the discussion regarding whether race and intelligence is a subject "fit for science", but the academic community - particularly in the US - is far from rejecting the study of race and intelligence out of hand. This is well illustrated by Nature Magazine's 2009 2-part coverage of the debate (both parts can be found here and here). While "race and intelligence" is not covered in Psych 101, it is part of the mainstream academic curriculum in those fields where it is relevant.

• Claim: A data-centric approach would be heavily reliant upon the work of experts such as Jensen and Rushton.

Response: This is not the case. A quick look at the bibliography of Jensen & Rushton's Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability reveals that the data relevant to the study of race and intelligence comes from the research a multitude of scholars. Further, arguments against the work of Jensen and Rushton based on some connection to the Pioneer Fund are tenuous at best. There is no reason why a data-centric approach would inherently favour either a pro-environmental or a pro-hereditarian position, as both of these rely upon the interpretation of a shared pool of research data.

Just to clarify, Rushon's survey is about research into sociological race, not genetic race. As I've said before, if we want to include research about sociological race, there is plenty of data. If we want data derived from research into genetic race, there is very little data. A.Prock 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The "genetic" component of this debate arose as the result of a deductive process, not of an empirical observation. I assume you understand that, so I don't know what it is your comment intends to highlight. Could you clarify? --Aryaman (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to date the most (if not all) of genetic conclusions are based on research into sociological race. With no empirical observation, it's difficult to present the data about how genetic race relates to intelligence. A.Prock 19:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, to be fair, the research is simply done in regards to "race", with one of the underlying questions being whether or not 100% of the differences between those races can be attributed to environmental (including social) factors. As I mentioned, the genetic component entered this debate as the result of a deductive process. For hereditarians, that process resulted in the genetic component being the only one left to account for the residual differences (i.e. those remaining after corrective statistical manipulation) in IQ. Obviously, this is merely deductive and not demonstrative - hence Jensen's interest in observables such as skull volume, neural density, etc. Through these, he hopes to corroborate the conclusion he feels he has been led to through his psychometric research - though, of course, this corroboration can never be anything more than indirect, circumstantial and/or coincidental. Which is why Neisser et al. concludes that there is no direct evidence supporting a genetic cause for the difference in IQ between the races. However, to be fair to Jensen and scholars with similar views, this chain of reasoning needs to be understandable to the reader. Omitting it makes it seem like hereditarians are on some mission to prove the existence of biological races, when this is really little more than a quirk by-product of no real consequence to them as psychologists. Of course, as individuals hoping to influence the direction of public policy which reaches beyond the governance of their area of expertise, the matter may look very different, based on the individual. --Aryaman (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When you refer to "race" here, the concept you are referring to is sociological race. And you are correct that evidence in support of the genetic hypothesis rests entirely on analysis and of sociological data, not genetic data. A.Prock 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the sneaking suspicion that this is a loaded phrase. The MTAS was a study on transracial adoption with the goal of identifying the relative roles played by genetics and the environment in the development of intelligence in Black children. If you want to say that this study produced data on "sociological race", I could agree provided that it meant nothing more than that these children were selected based on their membership to a particular race as identified by society at large. But if you want to say that, by virtue of this fact, the study says nothing about the role of genes in the development of cognitive ability in those children, and that, in turn, it says even less about the role of genes in the development of cognitive ability in the population for which they were chosen as a sample, then I think I'd have to disagree. The authors obviously felt that such conclusions could be drawn from the study, and those who have commented on the study, regardless of which side they take, also think the study says something about genes, intelligence and race. So, I have a hard time making the distinction you are requesting, as it seems based on a dichotomy which is untenable given the premise upon which a good deal of this research is conducted. --Aryaman (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the study was about sociological race. No genetic testing was done to identify the race of the participants. And all conclusions were made based on classifying participants into groups based on sociological race. A.Prock 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, we seem to agree on the first part. What about the second? Are you saying this study tells us nothing about the genetic contribution to cognitive development in these children? --Aryaman (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Twin studies are hard, but that's not what's at issue here. All I'm saying is that anything the study tells us relates to sociological race, not genetic race. Yes genetics plays a role in sociological race, but sociological race is not genetic race. A.Prock 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Claim: What may have worked in race and crime is not necessarily applicable to race and intelligence.

Response: No one is arguing that there is any logical necessity involved.

• Claim: Crime statistics in the US are published by government agencies. The statistics are hard facts that are quite uncontroversial.

Response: On the contrary, the controversy surrounding the results of studies comparing IQ results of racial groups is directly analogous to the controversy present in the field of criminology regarding crime statistics which compare racial groups. The vital difference resides in the fact that those scholars who argue that race crime statistics reveal systemic bias in the US criminal justice system against minorities (or further, that there is no actual disproportionality) automatically marginalize themselves because they, in effect, must argue that the Federal Government is a racist organization - and precious few universities are willing to retain a professor advocating such a position. If the data were coming from any body other than the US government, we would have the same situation in "race and crime" as we currently have in "race and intelligence", namely: Most scholars would be afraid to say anything other than "there is no reliable data which indicates a connection between race and criminal behaviour", the organization producing the statistical information would be decried as a cover for darker and more sinister agencies (think: Pioneer Fund), and the most vocal proponents of social positivism would shout down the few scholars trying to perform objective academic research. If you read up on some of the trans-Atlantic discussion between US scholars and European scholars from countries where it is forbidden to record the race of individuals involved in crime, the parallel between the issues of "race and crime" and "race and intelligence" becomes patently obvious.

In short, we can separate the data from the controversy, as the controversy is necessarily subsequent and secondary to the actual research. To argue that this is not the case is to take sides in the controversy itself.

• Claim: It is inappropriate to present IQ data with little or no context, criticism or analysis.

Response: The data-centric approach does not preclude the presentation of qualified context, criticism and/or analysis.

To summarize: After reviewing Muntuwandi's comments, I do not see at present any reason why we should not apply the proposed sectioning-off of the data and the interpretations to the article. --Aryaman (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful with point-by-point refutations like this. they tend to be taken badly, and do a disservice to the discussion.

I think there are two points that need to be clarified here:

• quantitative research on R&I is clearly not fringe the way wikipedia defines the term. we are talking about a question of balance here, nothing more, so let's try to avoid language that's too extreme.
• we're having trouble with the word "data", which seems to be used variably to mean (1) actual data (such as crime statistics and military records) (2) quantitative research (publications based on testing data), and (3) the researchers who publish quantitative data of a particular type or form a particular perspective (I'm not quite sure on this one, but it seems to be implied). "Data" also seems to be used to exclude a whole lot of non-numerical research, which I think would surprise the academics publishing those works. can we clarify precisely what we mean by "data" in data-centric? it would be better to make a list here and add to it, rather than letting the conversation fall into a protracted argument. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to re-rebut but since it is likely to lead to a protracted argument, I will avoid doing so and instead briefly summarize my concerns. Whenever I have done some research on this topic, whether online or in a library, I have had difficulties in finding information on the subject that isn't in some way based on, or related to, the studies of Jensen and Rushton. This has been my experience, it may be different for others. If someone wanted data on the subject of RI, I would suggest The Bell Curve or Jensen's magnum opus, The g Factor. Both these books are filled with data( means, medians, correlations, variances SDs etc). Yet these books are highly controversial and the theories in these books have not gained mainstream acceptance. OTOH, if someone wanted data on crime statistics, they can easily be obtained from The Bureau of Justice Statistics. There isn't much controversy regarding the actual data, rather the controversies exist about public policy on crime. AFAIK, there isn't an equivalent government website that has race/IQ stats in such detail. Data may exist for SAT scores, and SAT may have a "g" component but this isn't explicit IQ data. To address Ludwig's concern about data, my impression is that a data-centric article will have data that is similar to the data found in publications such as The Bell Curve and The g Factor. This is my main concern about a data-centric article, that it will directly or indirectly give undue weight to hereditarian theories as suggested by Jensen and others. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Social vs. genetic

Sectioning this comment - Slrubenstein makes a good point: I think a separate debate on social vs. genetic definitions of race is called for. how are we going to handle this issue?

Ludwigs2

Above, Aryaman wrote the following, which to me still shows we have failed to mediate a major issue:

If you want to say that this study produced data on "sociological race", I could agree provided that it meant nothing more than that these children were selected based on their membership to a particular race as identified by society at large. But if you want to say that, by virtue of this fact, the study says nothing about the role of genes in the development of cognitive ability in those children, and that, in turn, it says even less about the role of genes in the development of cognitive ability in the population for which they were chosen as a sample, then I think I'd have to disagree.

No problem with the first sentence, but t=what comes next is hard to believe. First, the grammar of the next sentence "That it therefore says nothing about the roe of genes" is just weird, and suggests some kind of sophistry. If race is a social construct, then statements about race are about a social construct. Now, do we have data about genes? Well, the fact that we have data on a social construct is neither here nor there. Isn't the logical thing to say, "If you want to say that a study that has genetic data says nothing about the role of genes, I would have to disagree with you," well who would not support that claim? My point: I can imagine that someone has data on race AND data on genes. In this case, it is ludicrous for someone to say that the data on race means we can say nothing about genes. Obviously if there is genetic data, the presence of additional data on race does not nullify that. That said, it is a simple fact that data on self-identified race says little to nothing about anything except a finite set of genes. In the best of cases, what race tells us about genetics is pretty slim. There is no scientific reason to think it can tell us anything about those genes involved in intelligence. In fact, the official statements of the AAA and APA make it clear that such suggestions are fringe science. The way to make scientific claims about the role of genetics in intelligence is through twin studies. Now,if you have done a study on racially distinct groups using twin studies, you would indeed have some knowledge of the role of genes in intelligence. But lacking twin studies, I have not seen any research on race and the inheritance of IQ that suggests that data on race is revealing of genetic influence. Arya, you can believe all you want, but fringe science is fringe science. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Ludwigs2, there is no genetic definition of race for humans (for other species it is the smae as subspecies but there is only one living subspecies of Homo). All the data correlating race to IQ scores relies on self-identified race, i.e. identification with a social construct. I know of no research in which IQ tests and genetic tests were done together. Now, there is a lot of solid research on genetics and intelligence, but this literature, based on twin studies, is about genetics and not race. To combine the two by Wikipedians is original research. When a PhD combines the two, it is fringe science and viewed as fringe science by psychologists (APA statement) and anthropologists (AAA statement). Slrubenstein | Talk 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in a mediator role and I can't make judgements of this sort, so you don't need to respond to me. Honestly, I suspect that what's happening on this particular point is mostly a misunderstanding - different people are using terminology in different, incommensurate ways - and that if you all spend some time talking about what you mean rather than worrying about what's right and wrong, you can iron it out very quickly. I can rewrite the quote box to reflect that, if it makes things better; just let me know. --Ludwigs2 06:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You make a very good point. I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that our normal concept of race is not based on a genetic definition. Likewise I'm pretty sure that most everyone understand that while genetic testing has shown population clustering, it has not been able to delineate races. The main point is that most of the research that has been done into R&I has been with respect to our "normal concept of race", and not any sort of genetic definition of race. What this means is that any and all conclusions are about our "normal concept of race", even ones about heritability in a population. That this point is so difficult to speak about in moderation is a clear indication why the article has so many problems. There is a lot of confusion about what heritability in populations defined by social constructs means. In particular, the existence of such heritability does not speak to whether the concept of genetic race is well defined.A.Prock 06:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, we're very close to coming to an agreement here. If we can agree that at least some of the differences which constitute our lay concept of race are genetic in origin (as you indicated in the above section), then we should also be able to agree that a study which selects on the basis of lay race classification may tell us something about genetic difference, particularly if that study has been specifically designed to isolate environmental and social factors. Can you assent to this as theoretically possible? --Aryaman (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, I'd like your response to this question, as it seems to be a central rubbing point. --Aryaman (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly genes are responsible for a lot of the traits associate with genes. That's very different from saying that you can look at someone's genes and determine their race. And I'm happy to agree with the fact that through genetic clustering you can create a classification procedure which has a certain amount of success in separating people according to our sociological concept of race. All I'm saying is that if studies are based on sociological race, then the conclusions they reach -- by definition -- relate to sociological race, not genetic race. A.Prock 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, it just repeats what you've already said. Do you agree that a study which selects on the basis of our "sociological" conception of race can provide information which allows us to draw conclusions regarding the genetic contribution to cognitive development? That's the one that I would like to have answered. --Aryaman (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking me to speak to the legitimacy of the various studies, I'm afraid I can't do that for you. I suspect that some studies are good, and some are bad. The proper arbiters of your question is scientists in the appropriate field. A.Prock 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, this discussion came about in an attempt to clarify your insistence that research claiming to provide results relevant to the genetic contribution to cognitive development in races be prefaced with the disclaimer that the results of said research apply to "sociological race" only. The reason clarification is needed is because what you are requesting and what the studies themselves are investigating, e.g. the genetic contribution to cognitive development in various races, are largely if not entirely incommensurable - not because these studies apply to "genetic race", but because they apply to genetic (i.e. heritable) components thought to be statistically characteristic of those sociological groupings called "races". Prefacing such a study with a statement claiming it only applies to "sociological race", i.e. race as a social construct, obscures the fact that these studies, though starting from "sociological races", are inherently geared towards identifying heritable components within those groupings, and thus make claims which go beyond "race as a social construct".

Now, either you agree that these kinds of studies are theoretically and scientifically legitimate, or you do not. I'm not asking you to give your opinion upon whether a particular study was conducted properly or whether its data has been analysed correctly. Ultimately, I'm asking whether we can edit this article together on the agreement that it will deal with science which researches the connection between sociological races and the significantly heritable characteristic of intelligence. If you reject the ability of such studies to make scientifically legitimate claims regarding "race" as a social construct with heritable components, then this mediation will stall until it is realized that your contention is not so much with this area of research as it is with the enterprise of behavioural genetics. If that is not the case, however, we can dismiss this extraneous editorial discussion of "sociological" vs. "genetic" race and get back to presenting the academic dispute in a neutral fashion.

The distinction set up below between "race as a social construct" and "race as a biological category" is an inflammatory and largely false dichotomy. The options provided might sell newspapers, but no serious scientist would stand behind either of them without reams of clarification. Since we've been asked, I'll present my own opinion: Race is a social construct based on an informal and imprecise averaging of characteristics believed to be heritable, i.e. genetically influenced and/or determined. Honestly, I think (nearly) everyone would be able to agree with that definition. But, then again, I would think that, no? --Aryaman (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've said several times, including in the edit you're responding to, that such is possible. How many different ways do you want me to say it? I'm not sure what you're getting at with your false dichotomy point. If you're saying that SIRE information can be used interchangeably with genetic clusters, I'll refer you to the discussion in the source of the 99.86% number below where the authors conclude that is specifically not the case. A.Prock 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason this keeps going in circles?

• Editor A: "X is neither black nor white."
• Editor B: "I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're saying that black is white, then let me take this opportunity to correct you."
• Editor A: ???

Mediator, some assistance here would be kindly appreciated. --Aryaman (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you could explain what is specifically I wrote that is confusing you. You may notice, that when I replied to your "false dichotomy" remark, it wasn't clear to me what point you were trying to convey. That's why I put an if in front of my response. I'm not saying that you said that. I'm saying that I didn't understand what you said. A.Prock 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what the disagreement here is, either. here's what Im hearing when I read the above (please correct me if I'm wrong):

• Aprock says: Studies that begin with sociological race can (ultimately) only make claims about sociological race, but doesn't deny that there's a correlation with genes.
• Aryaman: Studies may begin with sociological race, but are reaching for a genetic/heritability claim that goes beyond sociological definitions of race, and thinks the social/genetic distinction is false.

The problem, I think, is that you're each worrying about a different form of misinterpretation. Aprock doesn't want to give the impression that there are actual, known, defined, genetic groups that specify races (I don't think anyone wants to give that impression, right?); Aryman doesn't want to give the impression that races are purely sociological categories without any genetic component (I don't think anyone wants to give that impression, either). It seems to me that the middle ground on this is already in place, but neither of you quite realizes that you're both arguing the same point. or am I missing it? --Ludwigs2 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

AProck said: "I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that our normal concept of race is not based on a genetic definition."

NOT everyone here believes that, no. To repeat something I'm sure you've read: 3,636 people gave DNA and identified themselves as being White, East Asian, African-American, or Hispanic. The self- identifications clustered almost perfectly according to 326 DNA markers.

What's your problem with this? By "genetic testing can't delineate race", do you mean that we do not have a list of ALL genes which differ between races? So what? The study shows that the "social construct" of race is not just an opinion, but corresponds to a physical reality in DNA. Something everyone here DOES believe is that self-reported race correlates with intelligence as measured by standard tests. Therefore, self-reported race, intelligence, and a physical reality in DNA all correlate. And strongly, too. Whatever you want to define the word "race" as is now actually irrelevant.

By declaring "race doesn't exist in DNA" you've defined away any difference that does exist while ignoring the fact that self-reported race and intelligence are both related to the same genetic difference in DNA. You're trying to sweep it under the rug with semantic tricks. It's like talking to a republican about Obama. No matter what he does, they've pre-decided that they don't like it, so manifestly logical arguments have no effect on them.

ALSO: Wapondaponda said (though he copied it directly from page 20 of Nisbett): "Lynn and others have published data that suggests that Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70, which is borderline mental retardation. This data suggests that half of all Africans are mentally retarded, a suggestion that some people find preposterous."

"...And therefore it's not true." The fact that some people find it preposterous only means that the common use of the word "retarded" is inaccurate and cruel, and that people don't have to be drooling mongoloids in order to have an IQ of 70.

Suppressing information in Wikipedia because "some people" don't like the implications of peer-reviewed, replicated research: THAT'S preposterous. It's completely isomorphic to "Sure, it may LOOK like the moons go around Jupiter, but it can't say they do in the encyclopedia because some people find it preposterous that the Earth isn't the center of everything'".

My point is that the idea of race being a mere opinion instead of a biological attribute is pretty much the dictionary definition of "fringe science". It would invalidate literally EVERY established belief in science involving biological race, like the universally-held anthropological opinion that negroid humans migrated out of Africa 100,000 years ago and evolved into two other races. It's like we're having the Scopes trial again here at Wikipedia.

Including this fringe idea in Wikipedia at all is improper, but I'm willing to compromise and let it be one short section, modulo it include a statement that most experts DO believe that there are three (main) races of humans, that the contrary assertion appears only or almost only in R/I debates, and that other fields of science have no problem with the concept of biological race. However I'm willing to forgo including those statements in the name of consensus, so we can get this article completed and I can go back to learning stuff instead of defending the publication of that which is already known. TechnoFaye Kane 10:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This point of slrubenstein's which we've heard ad nauseum really needs to be put to rest. Yes, races are biological categories (exactly where they fall on the continuum between subspecies and family is no matter, I would say they are subspecies). No, we don't have a genetic definition. But the point of the research is to attempt to narrow down possible genetic components by comparing subpopulations, classified according to observable traits. As an analogy, Gregor Mendel classified plants based on observable traits. Then he studied the traits of offspring, and deduced genetic causes of traits. Was he aware of the genetics of the organisms before his study? No, because the point of the study was to deduce these genes. To attempt to shut down this research by essentially saying "you don't know what you're trying to find out" really is preposterous. And confusing social and genetic categories when we're looking at biological categories is really underhand. mikemikev (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's important not to confuse genetic traits with race. No one is denying that there are genes. A.Prock 16:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetic traits? Traits are by definition phenotypic. mikemikev (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree also, with one reservation. If I recall correctly, the correlation between self-defined races and genetic clusters is 99.86%, so there are still going to be 0.16% of cases where the two don't correlate. And at least in the past, there have been social definitions of race where the correlation was obviously a lot less, such as the “one-drop rule” that used to exist in the United States where any amount of African ancestry was enough for a person to be considered “black”. The 19th-century idea of races as platonic categories with distinct boundaries, where a person can only belong to one or another, is not supported by biology. In Jensen’s research about race and intelligence, the way he views races in a genetic sense is as “breeding populations with fuzzy boundaries” and he emphasizes that they can only be defined in statistical terms, so I think our article should make this clear.

I’m really concerned that a few tendentious editors here are in danger of preventing the resolution of this mediation, by refusing to compromise or accept what the consensus is about this. If Aprock agrees with what Varoon Arya is saying in his response here, then there are a total of seven users involved in this mediation who agree about how the article should portray the genetic aspect of race as it relates to race and intelligent research—you, me, TechnoFaye, Aprock, Varoon Arya, DJ, and David.Kane. Consensus is more than just a vote, but in this case the argument that Slrubenstein is making has also been addressed multiple times before, both on this talk page and in the discussion for the Race and genetics article. To any impartial observer, I think it’s pretty clear what the consensus is about this aspect of the article, and in order for the mediation to be successful we need to make sure that this fact is clearly established. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation and consensus is not about votes. It will really help if you stick to the issues, and try to be more patient. A.Prock 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m in no hurry about this. It just matters to me that the mediation not drag on for an additional two months, or even longer than that, because of a group of two or three editors continuously stonewalling the discussion and refusing to accept any compromise. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that things will occur more efficiently if you don't assume that stonewalling is occurring. A.Prock 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe myself to be stonewalling, and I do not consider it at all inappropriate to suggest that the article on race and intelligence use the official statements on race and intelligence by the American Anthropological Association and the American Psychological Association as science. I do object to TechnoFaye characterizing "social construction" as "opinion;" that simply indicates that she does not understand what social scientists mean by social construction. It definitely does not mean "opinion."

I am curious about the claim that when people identify themselves as belonging to a race, this may indicate genetic cause to differences in IQ. I feel much more confident about geneticists making thse claims. That a person feels an identification with a particular race - and TechnoFaye, if you are looking for "opinion," surely this is where opinion most clearly enters into the discussion - should not be taken to say anything about genetics, one way or the other. That person is not a geneticist (or, we hae not been told that he or she is).

I am very concerned that there are editors making judgments on the research by anthropologists and sociologists, that either involve dismissing these academic disciplines (which are the seats for research on race) entirely, or are founded on serious misunderstandings of social science research. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, these objections are becoming tediously repetitious. We all know that you don't like the fact that psychologists believe they can design studies on "sociological" race which can tell us something about genes and their contribution to cognitive development. I'm beginning to doubt that you understand how these studies are designed and conducted. But that's secondary, and even forgiveable. The primary problem here is that you refuse to accept that studies such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study are recognized as legitimate science. And that is what makes your participation here appear to be disruptive stonewalling rather than constructive collaboration. --Aryaman (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your point about the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. I have never said anything about it have? Can you explain what your point is, introducing it here? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the topic of discussion when you jumped in with your comment - the one that was later moved to head of this section. Given the context, it's hard to interpret your comment as not applying to the MTAS. But, even if you were responding out of ignorance to the context of the portion you so ably highlighted, it doesn't change the fact that, given the content of your comments, you're still rejecting the basis upon which studies such as the MTAS were conducted a priori. You're arguing against the entire discipline of behavioural genetics on the grounds of your philosophy of science, which is holding everything up, seeing as a good deal of this article will treat the results of such research. --Aryaman (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject a mediation comment. I think the slr's worry (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is on the order of 'correlation ≠ causation'. It is one thing to say that there are socially defined 'races' which correlate with certain genetic characteristics; it's another thing to say that race is caused by genetic characteristics. The difference is marginal when you think about overt physical features (e.g. skin color and facial bone structures, which are associated with race both socially and genetically - it's almost tautological), but problems arise when you start thinking about 'covert' characteristics like intelligence: The first statement leaves an open question as to whether intelligence might be one of the characteristics that correlates with SDR, while the second statement tends to presume that races will naturally differ on a broad range of characteristics, making a stronger case that intelligence differs by race. I don't know how to resolve this, or even if it needs to be resolved; I'm just trying to express the concern more clearly. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective it's more along the lines of what's being suggested right now. It seems like some editors think that sociological race and genetic race are effectively equivalent. This is currently not the mainstream scientific position, and interpreting past research on sociological race as representative of genetic race constitutes original research. A.Prock 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely do care about the correlation does not equal causation issue, but that is something for scientists to deal with. I am instead concerned with Arya and others constant posturing about what is real science. To reply to Arya, I added my comment in response to the post that immediately preceded it. I would rather you interpret my comments based on what is actually in them, compared to what you are imagining in your mind. As for the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, the original scientists concluded that the difference in IQ was social not genetic. They and others have pointed out many times that the only variable that was change was family environment - which I agree is important, but is NOT the same thing as changing the social environment; the social environment of the children did not change and this point leads to an issue with the a priori basis for such experiments. The kinds of environmental forces that sociologists and anthropologists believe are affecting IQ scores cannot be manipulated experimentally. This does not mean that they cannot be studied scientifically, it just means that it would be bad science to try to study them through an experiment. A good scientific study would have to be more creative. Sometime after the Minnesota experiment other scholars used the data to ague that inheritance explained the difference in IQ and the original designers of the experiment replied that this was a misinterpretation of the data based on an oversimplified reading of the experiment. My point: one has to interpret the results of such experiments very cautiously. Not to do so is one of the markers of fringe science. Using a cookie-cutter approach to method, interpreting results casually, these are hall-marks of fringe science, which is why the AAA and APA recognize them to be fringe science. I have never argued against the scientific study of race and intelligence - geneticists using twin studies are doing good science. But there are a group of psychologists who do not have training in genetics and are not using the scintific methods of geneticists and then claim that their findings are scientifically valid conclusions about genetics? To me this is an insult to science, but again, lets leave my personal POV at the door: the APA and AAA consider this fringe science.

Ludwigs2, people accuse me of stonewalling. But I am increasingly frustrated by other editors (a couple of which are suddenly active here but never edited the R&I article) who agree that race is a social construct but then insist that it can be the basis for a genetic argument. That is just dogmatism. Aprock has responded to them very capably, and I agree with all her points. I'll conclude by reiterating that I just wan to use the AAA and APA official statements a guidelines for what is fringe science. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let me see if I can summarize the various positions here. we have:

• race is (almost) entirely a sociological construct.
• races are biological categories (somewhere on the continuum between subspecies and family)

are there any other positions?

I do think I need to clarify one thing (speaking as a scientist). the high correlation between self-defined races and genetic clusters (I assume you actually mean to say that the correlation is close to 1 or genetic clusters account for 99.86% of the variability - the original phrase is meaningless) is not as powerful a statement as one might think. The way we identify race in daily life is by observing physical characteristics: i.e. I see someone and I determine that they are of african descent because of skin color, bone structure, differences in body type, and etc (funny story - I went years thinking that Halle Berry was white until someone corrected me on it). these kinds of physical characteristics are of course genetically determined, and so the 'daily life' definition of race will naturally correlate highly with certain genetic markers. However, this is a bit like walking out on St. Patrick's day and trying to determine people's Irishness by the color of their clothes. you'll be very accurate if you do that - almost every Irishkin I know sports the green on St Paddy's - but it would be stretching it a bit to say there's a genetic predisposition towards green shirts. this doesn't refute the possibility of a genetic basis, I'm just pointing out I don't think you can make the case that this correlation means anything more than that the social definition of race is based on the observation of features that are in turn based in genetics. --Ludwigs2

Well, when "race" is used by an ornithologist or entymologist or ichtheologist, the word is synonymous with "subspecies." So there is a context in which biologists use the word race to refer to something biological. The thing is, this simply does not apply to hman beings. No credible biologist - none- claim that the existing subspecies of Homo, sapiens sapiens has any further taxonomic subdivisions. For all intents and purposes, H. Sapiens is it. So there are no other subspecies of H. sapiens. So in the biological sense, race does not apply to human beings.

There is only one sense in which race does apply to human beings and that is as a social construction. For this reason, how people have defined race, or classified people according to races, has changed over time and still varies from country to country. Some societies do not divide people into races at all. Of course, in societies where race is an important social construction it has been a very powerful one.

I think your point about identifying who is Irish on St. Patrick's day to be useful. here is another analogy: for over a thousand years Jews in Europe were prohibited from owning land; as a result many turned to commerce. By the 17th century Jews had a reputation of being good with money. Now, if you took DNA samples of all those Jewish merchants and bankers, you would indeed discover a high degree of relatedness. And if you tested these same people on their financial acuity, most would score high. I am just giving you back another correlation/causality warning. Mainstream scientists do not need to be told this; they get it and try to take account of it in their research design (the people who set up the Minnesota multiracial study tried to be very careful about this, and as a result reached conclusions that some editors here seem to wish to ignore). Fringe scientists do not care. Alas, many Wikipedians cannot tell the difference. But it is not for me to explain to any other Wikipedian why Rushton is fringe science. I'd rather just use the APA and AAA statements as standards for distinguishing between mainstream and fringe science. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SLR - can we avoid use of the word 'fringe' here? it tends to get people's dander up, and confuses the real issue (which is more a concern over word use than actual scientific validity) --Ludwigs2 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding positions, I don't care much about whether race is real, pretend, genetic, social or a pigment of our imaginations. What's important is that mainstream scientific understanding is represented. A.Prock 04:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, presumably you consider Richard Dawkins a credible biologist:

We can happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. This is Edward’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.

mikemikev (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the reference for that please? A.Prock 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Ancestor's Tale, 2004, Richard Dawkins. mikemikev (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to just throw this bomb out there without providing much in the way of detail, but I'm not sure that it's going to be easy to summarize the relationship of culture, genetics and "race" in a sufficiently precise and pithy way while also being neutral. Making such a difficult challenge a precursor to other work may be too much. A more achievable goal is to make a narrowly tailored attempt to present the diversity of views on what that topic (culture, genetics and race) says about this topic (race and intelligence). --DJ (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed: single-editor revisions

discussion about whether it be useful/acceptable to choose one editor to revise the article broadly, with other editors restricting themselves to talk page contributions. Naturally, all editors would have the opportunity to reject the final result, but the hope would be that a single editor (acting without interference and in good faith) might be able to create a version acceptable to all parties.

Ludwigs2

I think this is a good idea if DJ would be the person writing the article. Virtually all of his/her contributions to the article have been neutral and beneficial, and very few users here have expressed any problems with them. Based on the way he handled the Race and Crime article, I think Varoon Arya could also do a good job writing this, but I think DJ would be the best choice. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. I don't trust people who say there's no such thing as biological race to write an unbiased article about whether it's related to intelligence. Nor could I write a decent article explaining that Dr. King isn't really negro and that believing he is just someone's opinion. It's not literally impossible, but it's like expecting creationists to write the article about evolution. Each section should be written by someone who believes what he's writing about belongs in Wikipedia, reviewed by the rest of us, and then defended here like a dissertation. Also:

Tucking away some extended content, because this runs off topic for this section. I think it belongs in the #social vs. genetic section, maybe?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AProck said: I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that our normal concept of race is not based on a genetic definition. " NOT everyone here believes that, no. "while genetic testing has shown population clustering, it has not been able to delineate races." Wrong again, Albert. To repeat something I'm sure you've read: 3,636 people gave DNA and identified themselves as being White, East Asian, African-American, or Hispanic. The self- identifications clustered almost perfectly according to 326 measured DNA markers. What's your problem with this? By "genetic testing can't delineate race", do you mean that we do not have a list of ALL genes which differ between races? So what? It shows that the "social construct" of race is not just an opinion, but corresponds to a physical reality in DNA. Something everyone here DOES believe is that self-reported race correlates with intelligence as measured by standard tests. By declaring "race doesn't exist in DNA" ad hoc, you've defined away any difference that does exist. You're sweeping it under the rug with semantic tricks. ALSO: Wapondaponda said (though he copied it directly from page 20 of Nisbett): "Lynn and others have published data that suggests that Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70, which is borderline mental retardation. This data suggests that half of all Africans are mentally retarded, a suggestion that some people find preposterous." "...And therefore it's not true." The fact that some people find it preposterous only means that the common use of the word "retarded" is inaccurate and cruel, and that people don't have to be drooling mongoloids in order to have an IQ of 70. Suppressing information in Wikipedia because "some people" don't like the implications of peer-reviewed, replicated research: THAT'S preposterous. It's completely isomorphic to "Sure, it may LOOK like the moons go around Jupiter, but it can't say they do in the encyclopedia because some people find it preposterous that the Earth isn't the center of everything'". My point is that the idea of race being a mere opinion instead of a biological attribute is pretty much the dictionary definition of "fringe science". It would invalidate literally EVERY established belief in science involving biological race, like the universally-held anthropological opinion that negroid humans migrated out of Africa 100,000 years ago and evolved into two other races. It's like we're having the Scopes trial again here at Wikipedia. To say that self-reported race is different from biological race one must believe either: 1) That there is no correlation between self-reported race and (trivial) physical features such as dark skin and wide noses, or 2) That differences in these physical features are not due to differences in DNA. Including this fringe idea in Wikipedia at all is improper, but I'm willing to compromise and let it be one short section, modulo it include a statement that most experts DO believe that there are three (main) races of humans, that the contrary assertion appears only or almost only in R/I debates, and that other fields of science have no problem with the concept of biological race. However I'm willing to forgo including those statements in the name of consensus, so we can get this article completed and I can go back to learning stuff instead of defending the publication of that which is already known. Finally, I think I ought to say that per request of the new moderator, I'm trying hard not to say things that are "objectionable". Sadly, I guess I should have expected it from an anti-heriditarian moderator, but: 1) It's the implications of legitimate research which some people find objectionable. 2) Politeness is something autistics can barely even detect, much less generate. If this post makes some people pissed off (or however you say it politely), I apologize because that's not my motivation for spending over an hour writing it and I really don't want to get banned from another online forum. TechnoFaye Kane 08:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC) “I don't trust people who say there's no such thing as biological race to write an unbiased article about whether it's related to intelligence.”

The person who Varoon Arya and I have suggested should write the article is DJ, who I’m pretty sure hasn’t made this claim. I think you should look through DJ’s history of edits before you judge his/her ability to write the article in a reasonable manner; it’s rather rash of you to assume that you’ll disapprove of an article written by DJ if you aren’t familiar with him/her.

Also, I think this is the wrong section of the talk page for replying to Muntuwandi’s comment. His comment is being discussed in the “social vs. genetic” section, but this section is for discussing the idea of having the article written primarily by a single editor. I’d appreciate it if you could move your reply to Muntuwandi up to the section where his comment is being discussed. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Occam, I've archived it for now. she can move it or rewrite it as she chooses. and please, leave these kinds of structural things to me; it's better if you all just focus on content. If someone gets annoyed at me for archiving or moving material there's no harm done, since I don't have a stake in the debate. but if one of you starts trying to deal with structure you run the risk of creating bad feelings. If you think I've missed something, leave a note on my talk page and I'll deal with it. --Ludwigs2 09:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think DJ or VA singlehandedly putting together a first version is fine (if they are happy with this). I guess someone will have to think up a structure plan at some point, before writing the article. It would do no harm to put that up for comment while work progresses. mikemikev (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea of what the structure of the article could be if it were to take a data-centric approach, but I'm not sure if it's premature for me to be getting into that at this point. Ludwig, are we ready to start discussing specifics about what the data-centric approach should look like, or do we first need to spend longer making sure consensus supports this idea? --Captain Occam (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've created a section below, and copied in the todo template I used above. why don't you go ahead and edit in your proposal for a data-centric article there, and then we'll get comments and revise it. --Ludwigs2 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I expect that Varoon Arya would be a good editor to do a rewrite of the article. He seems to have the ability and the energy, and seems generally receptive to alternate viewpoints. That said, I think this only works if he works well with a reliable set of editors (I would suggest Alun or Slrubenstein as primary editor). As I said above, the editors probably should not edit the article directly themselves. Of course, it may be that the final version of the article isn't acceptable, and we still find ourselves spinning our wheels. A.Prock 05:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Eventual page structure

At Ludwig’s suggestion, I’ve gone ahead with my proposal now. Something I’d like everyone to keep in mind about this is that I came up with almost none of this myself. Since the data-centric approach was DJ’s idea, and the current assumption (which may change, but it’s what’s been discussed so far) is that DJ will be writing the final version of the article, the structure I’ve come up with is based almost entirely on the proposals that DJ has made already.

Most of the structure is based on the article structure that DJ came up with in December, during the time when the article briefly existed under the name Between-group differences in IQ, and which existed under the article’s current name until Ramdrake reverted it back two months on January 22nd. The new items I’ve added are the ones that DJ proposed in his opening statement, which is where he originally suggested the idea of the article using a data-centric approach.

The only thing I’ve added here that was my own idea, rather than DJ’s, is the idea of dividing the data between “factors potentially affecting group IQ” and “data and interpretations”. I think this is a natural division for it to have: the first category is factors which have been proposed to account for the IQ difference, and the question is whether they do or not; in other words hypotheses about this that have been proposed and then are tested. The “data and interpretations” section is for information that goes in the opposite direction: starting with specific lines of data, and then proposing explanations for them.

There are some items where I’m not completely sure which section they belong in, particularly “evolutionary scenarios.” According to DJ’s opening statement (which he posted in November), this was discussed in the January issue of PAID, and I’m assuming he meant the January 2009 issue because at that point the January 2010 issue hadn’t been published yet. I’ve looked through the January 2009 issue, though, and can’t easily tell what it is that he was referring to there. So depending on what this is, it’s possible that it’s something which belongs in the “factors potentially affecting group IQ” section.

I think it would be useful if DJ could give us his input about this, especially since some of us are hoping that he’ll be the one to eventually write the article. He hasn’t been active on Wikipedia in around two weeks; does anyone know how to get in contact with him? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to say that the structure plan is, in my opinion, an improvement, and I support immediate implementation. I can see this getting messy, and why having an elected single editor would be a very good idea. My first proposal is to change "Black and biracial children raised by white parents" to "Trans-racial adoption studies". mikemikev (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I'd like the article to address very early is how the primary data is gathered (e.g. which tests are administered, what things those tests measure) and what techniques are used for manipulating that data (e.g. regression, correction, etc.). This should, in my opinion, happen prior to the presentation of the test score results themselves. It needn't be much, but should certainly contain links to the main articles, such as Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. --Aryaman (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the outline ought to be modified, VA? It’s all right with me if you want to try modifying it yourself. Since you’re the one who originally proposed that DJ should write the finished article, I know you approve of most of the changes / proposals he’s made. So if you’re going to edit the outline, I trust you to do it in a way that won’t go against the type of structure that DJ would approve of. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we should specifically have sections early in the article which address the most contentious topics that we've seen in moderation. Specifically, a discussion of sociological race versus genetic race, and a discussion of exactly what the mainstream consensus is at this point in time. A.Prock 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion. let's make specific requests for change using {{Question-icon}} as follows:

• move section X before section Y and demote Y for a subsection.

then, if there are no objections raised we can edit the change in. this should separate specific requests from the surrounding commentary. I trust that we can let anyone edit the list for now; if there's anything contentious, ask Captain Occam or myself to edit in.

I'll leave a note for DJ telling him his attention is requested. --Ludwigs2 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The outline looks good. Unfortunately, I can't commit to the time required to be a dependable contributor. Perhaps Aryaman would be a better choice for that role. --DJ (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if you don't think you'll be able to write the new version of the article yourself, could you please explain what you meant by "evolutionary scenarios" described by the January issue of PAID, when you were giving your original explanation of what topics you thought the data-centric approach should cover? I don't even know for sure whether you meant the January 2009 or January 2010 issue, and I definitely don't know which specific paper or papers you were referring to. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The 99.86% correlation number

Above Occam wrote "If I recall correctly, the correlation between self-defined races and genetic clusters is 99.86%". That struck me as a suspiciously high number so I looked for where this may have come from. It looks like it may have come from here: [4]. Is that correct? A.Prock 23:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s the study I was referring to. I figured this study was also what TechoFaye was referring to in his own comment, “The self- identifications clustered almost perfectly according to 326 DNA markers”, but I figured it was more precise to give the actual percentage number. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, that study does not say that self reported race correlates to genetic clusters at the rate of 99.86%. That number refers to how well their best model fits the filtered training data - that best model treated treated self reported Chinese and Japanese as the same race. I can see why there might be some confusion as the article is fairly technical. If you read the article in full, there is a discussion of various confounding factors, as well as a discussion of the difficulties the software had with separating Chinese and Japanese races. A key quote from the article illustrates the problem of separating races with genetic clustering:

Our observations also emphasize the importance of SIRE (self identified racial/ethnicity) information: although statistical approaches using genetic marker information recapture SIRE with high accuracy, such analyses need to be guided by SIRE information.

In other words, the clusterings they produced are not genetic clusters, but genetic/SIRE clusters. This is a great example of some of the problems that we are having. Cursory readings of technical papers lead to incorrect conclusions, often influenced by personal points of view all editors carry with them. A.Prock 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For the purpose of what we’re discussing, I don’t see why the distinction matters. This study was brought up in response to a claim that since race is a social entity, it’s bad science to search for a possible genetic basis for biological traits (such as intelligence) that vary between races. But what this study shows is that there are also genes whose distribution varies between races, so it’s possible at least in theory for these to include some of the genes which influence IQ.

If we were discussing variation between races for almost any other biological trait, such as the ability to digest milk as adults or the reaction to any number of drugs, I don’t think most people would have nearly as much trouble accepting the fact that it’s possible for genes to be involved in this variation. Slrubenstein’s argument, about it being bad science to search for a genetic basis to biological differences between races, applies exactly the same to traits such as drug reactions as it does to intelligence. But I don’t think anyone ever argues that the former aren’t genetic. Some of the specific genes and proteins which cause these differences have already been identified; for example the tendency of Asians to be more sensitive to alcohol is caused by a variant form of the protein aldehyde dehydrogenase.

Given that socially-defined races can differ in genetic traits also, do you agree that it’s possible, at least in theory, for a study examining our socially-defined races to identify a genetic basis for certain types of variation between them? In the case of sensitivity to alcohol this has already been done, but I’d like you to agree that it’s possible in general, because the general principle of this applies to intelligence also. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The distinction matters very much. In fact, I might go so far as saying that this goes to the heart of the problem here. Data was presented from a source incorrectly, in a way which contradicted the conclusions of the source, and in a way which aligned with the POV issues that surround this mediation. This is a perfect example why this mediation needs to occur. It regularly happens that one small tidbit of a source is taken out of context and presented in a POV way which does not reflect the source or mainstream science. It doesn't matter what I think is or is not possible. It only matters what the sources and the literature say. It's very important that when we refer to a source that we do so in a way which represents the content of the source, and not in a way which contradicts the content of the source. A.Prock 05:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aprock: it might help to acknowledge the possibility, with the caveat that the research doesn't seem to support the conclusion. it's hard to argue with a possibility in the absence of evidence, and if you acknowledge the possibility we can move on to issues of balance and avoiding synth. --Ludwigs2 05:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that there is a study out there with those (or related) conclusions. What I personally think is possible really doesn't matter. And I should make clear, I don't really have a strong sense of what is and is not possible in this regard. More generally, as far as I can tell anything is possible when it comes to science. What matters is that sources are not misrepresented, either in content or weight. A.Prock 05:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is some misinterpretation of the 99.86% correlation between SIRE and multilocus genetic clusters. With genetic fingerprinting, one can identify a specific individual virtually 100% of the time(except for monozygotic twins). Of course this doesn't make an individual a "race". An individual is genetically most similar to members of his or her immediate family who are more similar to members of the extended family who are similar to members of the clan. This pattern continues up to, village, town, city, state, country, sub-continent, continent and world levels roughly in that order. With the right genetic markers one can determine membership within a given family close to 100% of time, this is the basis for paternity and maternity tests. Assuming endogamous indigenous populations, with the right genetic markers one can determine what village, city, state, country one comes from close to 100% of the time. Race, which is equivalent to continental ancestry is just one of several ways to cluster human populations genetically. Naturally when individuals from global populations are analyzed, individuals from the same continent will cluster together because of isolation by distance. However when individuals from the same continent are analyzed, genetic clustering is also observed. The result is, with the right genetic markers, one can distinguish the Japanese from the Chinese close to 100% time though they belong to the same continental population or "race". Wapondaponda (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this explanation, and if you’re familiar with Jensen’s research, you’ll be aware that he does also. Your comment here could be considered a concise summary of his explanation about the meaning of race on pages 421-432 of The g Factor. We might disagree about other aspects of the article, but it’s good to see that we’re on the same page about whether Jensen’s research is based on an accurate understanding of the genetic meaning of race.

Ludwig, at what point will you consider us to have sufficiently resolved this issue about social vs. genetic meanings of race? I’d like the discussion about this topic to be out of the way before I start making proposals about article structure. I don’t want to look like I’m trying to end the discussion here prematurely, but I also don’t want the discussion about this to end up getting stuck in an endless loop, the way it often did on the article talk page. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the main difficulty stems from editors reinterpreting articles in a POV manner. This is exactly what happened when you quoted the 98.86% number, and I think recognizing this error is an important step to moving forward. Everyone makes mistakes, but if you're not willing to acknowledge them and learn from them, that means that every edit made is going to have to be checked and rechecked to make sure the same kinds of POV errors are not creeping in. A.Prock 17:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by resolved. If it is about the existence or the meaning of race with regards to humans, I believe the mainstream position is that race does have some genetic correlates( notably skin color), but race alone is a poor descriptor of human genetic variation, since most genetic variation is found within a population rather than between them. The definition of race itself, even when applied to non-humans is problematic. Indeed almost all taxonomic classifications are arbitrarily defined. Only the species classification can be applied with some degree of objectivity and consistency, at least for sexually reproducing organisms. All taxonomic classifications above and below the species classification are not necessarily real entities but exist mainly for the convenience of taxonomists. Are races then real biological entities. One cannot predict the IQ of an individual by knowing their race. Though populations may differ in mean IQ scores, the IQ scores of millions of "blacks" overlap with the scores of millions of "whites" and other "races". For a "black" individual who has an equivalent IQ score with that of a "white" individual, what is the meaning or value of race, be it social or genetic, in distinguishing the two. Sure multilocus clusters would place them in different groups, but their IQ scores would place them in the same group. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Occam, I would suggest editing in your stucture plan as soon as it's ready. mikemikev (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to make sure the social/genetic issue is resolved first. This issue has come up so many times, I’d venture to say that it might be the single biggest issue that’s prevented anyone from making any progress with the article. In the past, most discussions about new edits or proposed changes have eventually just degenerated into arguments about this topic, in which everyone rehashed the same points about it that they’d made at least a dozen times before.

If we can make a long-term decision about this here, I think it will make a bigger difference in stabilizing the article than anything else we’ve accomplished in the mediation thus far. If we don’t, I think it’s fairly likely that in another week or few weeks, someone will bring up this issue again and we’ll have to all rehash the same points about it that we just made here. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How about a straw poll? Races are just social constructs/too difficult to define to be useful. Races are useful biological categories, with predictive power, including for IQ. (This isn't the straw poll). mikemikev (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I find it highly improbable that a straw-poll would do us any good here. We need to agree that race is a social construct with heritable components if we are to work on this article together. Those who maintain that either "race is a social abstraction" or "race is a biological reality" with no recognition of the all-important overlap between "race as a social abstraction" and "race as a biological reality" need to be shown the door in the most polite way possible so the rest of us can get on with this article. --Aryaman (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman, just to clarify, I think everyone agrees that race is a social construct. The issue is that some are trying say that it's not a biological category. (Where they're going with that I don't know, deleting the article?) I agree that the overlap between these things is an important area in the field. mikemikev (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Above, Ludwigs2 asks, :

Aprock: it might help to acknowledge the possibility, with the caveat that the research doesn't seem to support the conclusion. it's hard to argue with a possibility in the absence of evidence, and if you acknowledge the possibility we can move on to issues of balance and avoiding synth.

The problem is, science never discounts anything. It is possible - just possible - that variation in human intelligence is caused by an as yet undetected radiation directed at this plant from aliens in space. It is highly unlikely and scientists right now are getting funding for more likely things, but it is possible. Of course there is some correlaton between genes and race: blacks correlate highly for genes for brown eyes. Does this mean intelligence also has a genetic component? Well, what does it mean to ask that questio? Do we think the gene for intelligence is linked to the gene for eye-color? Gees really code for polypeptides that form prts of protiens. It is very easy for me to see how they enzymes formed by theproteins determine eye color. Genes can definitely affect intelligence, as with Down's syndrome. But there are other genetic differencs, like blood type, that do not correlate as strongly with race as eye color,l and for obvious reasons that have more to do with social functions of race than genetics. My point in bringing up all this stuff is that good scientists have to be very carefulin how they devlo hypotheses and develop their research. As Aprock shows that the souces being cited in fact are often quite careful in their claims. It is distressing to see some editorrs say that we in the encyclopedia do not need to be so carefu. That leads to inaccuracies and opens the doore to OR violations, because if we do not report scientific findings precisely, we are using them as pretexts to sneak our own views in. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That intelligence has a significant genetic component in individuals is undisputed. Academic consensus - both within psychology and beyond - supports it, and everyone here interested in seeing this mediation progress needs to accept that proposition as more or less established. Discussion regarding the permissibility or legitimacy of research performed by psychologists into the contribution of genes to cognitive development needs to come to an end.

Also, editorial discussion on the potential merits and/or truth-value of academic research into this topic needs to cease. We are not here to continue the academic debate, we are here to document it neutrally. If an editor cannot see the merits as well as the faults in both of the positions involved, then s/he should seriously consider whether s/he is capable of viewing this issue neutrally and whether s/he can contribute to the article in a positive, constructive way.

Finally, the discussion regarding the "true nature" of "race" needs to be put to bed. Our only concern here as editors is how experts use the term in their research. Properly sourced criticism of such working definitions can and should be included in the article. Arguing that some research should be ignored, discounted or otherwise marginalized because of the researcher's working definition of the concept of "race" is a tactic to be used by participants in the academic debate, not by Wikipedia editors. --Aryaman (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a response to what I wrote? I have never disputed that human intelligence is inherited. I also do not question that, at least within some US populations, variation in IQ is largely heritable. But this dispute centers on how we distinguish between mainstream and fringe science. And I have consistently asked that we use the AAA and APA statements on race and intelligence as benchmarks for answering this question. None of your comments speak to any of my points. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, we agreed nearly three months ago to use the Neisser et al. paper as a guide to writing the overview. Hell, I wrote the thing myself, which was added upon community consensus and remains in the article in its current state. So, forgive me if I assume that point has been sufficiently addressed. --Aryaman (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic of this section is about misrepresenting sources in a POV manner, a common problem faced here. Until we can recognize that problem. I think we should directly deal with that. Especially since it doesn't seem well understood that it is a problem, even in this specific example. A.Prock 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Redponding to Arya: of course I accept Neisser, which is why I find some of the views you keep presenting as mainstream strange, and why i find your accusations that I am stonewalling strange. Neisser et. al write:

Because claims about ethnic differences have often been used to rationalize racial discrimination in the past, all such claims must be subjected to very careful scrutiny. Nevertheless, group differences continue to be the subject of intense interest and debate. There are many reasons for this interest: some are legal and political, some social and psychological. Among other things, facts about group differences may be relevant to the need for (and the effectiveness of) affirmative action programs. But while some recent discussions of intelligence and ethnic differences (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) have made specific policy recommendations in this area, we will not do so here. Such recommendations are necessarily based on political as well as scientific considerations, and so fall outside the scope of this report.

I have made it very clear that I support an article on debates about race and intelligence as they pertain to public policy; I also pointeed out that most of the so-called "hereditarians" are involved in public policy debates or research responding to or meant to inform public policy debates. So creating an article is a content fork, not a POV fork. This was my proposal for including those views in a Wikipedia article, and I have been criticized for making this proposal. I have also pointed out that thos "hereditarian" views, while important in pulbic policy debates, are fringe science. My view comes right out of Neisser et. al. quoted above.

Besides European-Americans ("Whites"), the ethnic groups to be considered are Chinese- and Japanese Americans, Hispanic Americans ("Latinos"), Native Americans ("Indians") and African-Americans ("Blacks"). These groups (we avoid the term "race") are defined and self-defined by social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable physical characteristics such as skin color. None of them are internally homogeneous. Asian Americans, for example, may have roots in many different cultures: not only China and Japan but Korea, Laos, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Pakistan. Hispanic Americans, who share a common linguistic tradition, actually differ along many cultural dimensions. In their own minds they may be less "Latinos" than Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans Cuban Americans, or representatives of other Latin cultures. "Native American" is an even more diverse category, including a great many culturally distinct tribes living in a wide range of environments.

And I have repeatedly rejected the association of racial data in relation to IQ tests as useful data for questions about genetics. Again, my view comes right out of Neisser et. al. They use the word "ethnicity" precisely to move away from the word race which, in public policy debates, is associated with genetic arguments.

My point, following Neiser et. al, is that there is no hereditarian versus SES debate among pure scientists; this is a debate among policy makers and scientists who are engaging public policy debates. Among scientists not involved in public policy debates, the hereditarian view is fringe. This follows from Neisser et. al.

So yes, I thought all these issues had been addressed. But some people here (Mike, TechnoFaye, others) keep arguing that races are biological entities and that the view that differences between groups' mean IQ scores are largely due to genetics is mainstream science. These views keep popping up in the debate and I keep insisting that Neisser et. al. be one of our principal points of reference for identifying fringe science. And following Neiser et. al. I still think the proper place for a discussion of the hereditarian view is in an article on Race and IQ in public policy debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You want to use a 1996 report which confuses South Asians with East Asians, written by Americans, about Americans (the melting pot), and makes no attempt to point out the simple distinction between race (East Asian) and ethnicity (Han Chinese, Japanese, Korean....) as your definitive text on the meaning of race? mikemikev (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you boter to read the 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) post by Aryaman, to which all of the above was a reply? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Can I ask how a scholar's involvment in public policy affects the credibility of his science? And this Race, IQ and Public Policy Scientists idea is a joke? I could say that many of the environmentalist scholars have been demonstrably communist, would this invalidate their science? Let's keep the politics out. mikemikev (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head here when you bring up the distinction between race and ethnicity. Given that Chinese and Japanese can be differentiated using genetic clustering techniques, should we say that they are a separate race or not? A.Prock 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Different ethnicity, same race. mikemikev (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

one study from 2009 was able to clearly distinguish the Chinese from the Japanese, stating "we observe clear separation of the Japanese populations from the Taiwanese and HapMap CHB populations". Wapondaponda (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, from the perspective of genetic clusters it's not possible to distinguish race and ethnicity. A.Prock 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that we can distinguish ethnic groups, but not races? Considering that ethnic groups are subsets of races this makes no sense. If they can identify Taiwanese (East Asian) and Japanese (East Asian) and Dravidian (South Asian) they can distinguish races. mikemikev (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's that you if you have a set of genetic clusters, you don't know whether a cluster represents an ethnic group or a racial group. A.Prock 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A few points:

are the following a good statement of the understanding on this issue?

• All current research in race is based in SIRE information
• Some research shows that race (defined by SIRE) correlates highly with certain genetic markers (markers which are obviously inherited, but which are chosen to specifically to reflect race)
• Research suggests that intelligence may have some heritability through individual bloodlines (parent to child). A few specific genes have been identified as likely candidates, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.
• There is no definitive research (as yet) that speaks to whether the genes that affect intelligence in individuals are part of the cluster of genes mentioned above.

— revised: 06:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with associating race with loose 'continental populations' so long as that perspective can be found in reliable sources, but I think we desperately want to avoid even the appearance of synthesis here. does anyone disagree with the above?

Occam - please go ahead and start working on the proposal for article structure. I think (or hope at least) that having a concrete problem to work on will help us get past the abstractions that bog down this debate. --Ludwigs2 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your list above is very much synthesis with respect to this article. All of the R/I research uses SIRE information, and not genetic clustering information. You are essentially suggesting that we reinterpret the study parameters. When racial/ethnic IQ studies come out that include genetic clustering information, we can include results based on genetic clustering. Genetic clusters are a function of the SIRE information, not the other way around. A.Prock 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A slight disagreement with the statement "Research shows that race as a social construct correlates highly with genetic markers". Race does correlate highly with pre-selected genetic markers that are specifically chosen to be informative about race, ethnicity or ancestry, such as Ancestry-informative markers. At the nucleotide level, the proportion of genetic variation is small relative to other species as two random humans are 99.9% genetically alike. Of this 0.1% difference, 85% is found within any population. About 7% of the 0.1% is thought to differ between races and it is this fraction of the genome that is used for ancestry determination. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Though intelligence is believed to have a heritable component, the genes which predispose individuals to high IQ scores have yet to be identified. one study involving high iq and average iq individuals failed to detect any association of genes and intelligence. This means that in this particular study, the high IQ group was genetically indistinguishable from the average IQ group. While IQ may be heritable, the failure to find a genetic association between genes and IQ leaves room for explanations other than those involving classical Mendelian genetics to explain why IQ scores vary. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, I put the above list in a box (I like boxes, in case you haven't noticed), and I'm going to try modifying the statements there as we go along to try to reach a consensus. I'm making the first modification now, with respect to Aprock's and Wapondaponda's comments.--Ludwigs2 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The first bullet should probably read "All current research into the relationship between race and intelligence is based on SIRE information". I would remove the second bullet entirely since it has nothing to do with any of the source which study the relationship between race and intelligence. If you think it's relevant, you should probably change it to something more like "Genetic clustering techniques can be used to generate marker based clusters which correspond to the SIRE information of the populations used to build the cluster." The last bullet seems a bit suspect to me. The numerous social scientific articles do not suggest that bullet four is false. Rather, there are numerous articles which show that IQ scores are correlated with SIRE, which is an entirely different statement. A.Prock 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

“Occam - please go ahead and start working on the proposal for article structure. I think (or hope at least) that having a concrete problem to work on will help us get past the abstractions that bog down this debate.”

Based on my experience on the article talk page, I really think that’s a bad idea. In the past, whenever anyone has proposed significant revisions to this article, not only has this unresolved definition debate made it impossible to obtain consensus for them; the new proposed changes have also actually thrown fuel on the fire of this debate, because editors would claim that these changes were based on a wrong understanding of the meaning of “race”, and we’d need to start several sub-discussions about how these changes went against the way some editors believed race to be defined.

It looks like this debate is getting close to being resolved, though, so hopefully it won’t be long before we can begin discussing specific changes to the article.

Here are my comments about your summary: I’m not sure what bullet point five is supposed to be saying. Is it saying that there are numerous social-scientific research articles that have identified specific genes which influence IQ and which vary between ethnic groups? As far as I’m aware, the only analyses which reached this conclusion about specific genes were conducted by non-scientists; I suggested several months ago that these analyses be mentioned in the article, but almost everyone else opposed me about this. The conclusion that researchers such as Jensen and Rushton have reached does not involve identifying specific genes; what it concluded is just that variation in intelligence works the same way as most other traits that are highly heritable between individuals and also vary between populations (such as height, skin color, eye color, or sensitivity to alcohol): that the variation between populations is caused by the same factors that affect variation within populations. If this is what point five is supposed to be saying, I think it should be clarified.

I also have a problem with it stating about the causes of intelligence that “specific genes have not been identified.” This part of the article describes the current state of research about this topic. I know of two genes which have been identified as possibly affecting intelligence, DTNBP1 and CHRM2, but the research about both of them is not considered conclusive at this point, because their association with intelligence hasn’t been replicated consistently. I would suggest changing point three to say “a few specific genes have been identified which may influence intelligence, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.”

Incidentally, these are the same genes I mentioned which non-scientists have shown to vary in their distribution between ethnic groups. It’s up to you whether that’s important enough to mention in your summary, but it’s at least worth mentioning this as part of the debate about whether or not such variation is possible.

The rest of your summary is fine in my opinion. If you change the items I mentioned, I’ll be satisfied with it. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving without prejudice: we don't need to get to details now - let's focus on revising the above summary, and we can deal with implementation once we have the framework
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well the section in question will need to be revised. There are several candidate genes that have been proposed, but all have failed to replicate an association with IQ. However genes that suppress IQ through congenital diseases are known. I believe the two genes mentioned DTNBP1 and CHRM2 need to be removed. There is no special information about them. This publication lists about 50 candidate genes for intelligence, I see no reason to single out only two. At present, the failure to replicate an association of genes with IQ means that most of the candidate genes have been proposed in a highly speculative manner. Another study involving 500,000 SNPs states ::::::"Six SNPs yielded significant associations across the normal distribution of g, although only one SNP remained significant after a false discovery rate of 0.05 was imposed. However, none of these SNPs accounted for more than 0.4% of the variance of g, despite 95% power to detect associations of that size". IOW whatever genes may influence IQ, they seem to do so in minute ways. According to this study, there is no single "Intelligence gene". Intelligence is probably influenced by thousands, perhaps millions of DNA variants acting together. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Muntuwandi, you tried to remove the reference to these genes several months ago, and I thought we resolved this issue in the discussion about it back then. Two studies that show associations between them and IQ are [5] and [6] , and I pointed out how according to the results of these studies (not the background information in the studies, which is the part that you were quoting) certain alleles of these genes can either raise or lower IQ. I know you don’t personally agree with these studies, and I also know that other studies have failed to replicate their results, but neither of these facts are a reason to exclude them from the article. NPOV policy dictates that we should present all of the viewpoints about these genes that have appeared in reliable sources, and studies that have appeared in the journals Behavioral and Brain Functions and Behavioral Genetics definitely meet those criteria. When I pointed this out before, everyone else involved in the discussion about it agreed with me, and eventually you just dropped out of the discussion. I don’t think there’s much question what the consensus about this is, or what kind of presentation about these studies is consistent with Wikipeda policy. Are you going to sidetrack the mediation by demanding that we rehash this discussion again now? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I think it will help move the conversation forward if you refrain from rushing to consensus. Doing so only distracts from the issues that we are trying to discuss. In this case, the topic at hand is whether studies into race and intelligence speak to genetic race, or to sociological race. I think it's pretty clear that they are all about sociological race. I take it you do not agree. Is that correct? A.Prock 05:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Occam - I note that you think it's a bad idea to start on the article structure, but it would help me out if you started it anyway. I expect that there will be some contention over it, but I think the contention is controllable, and will be worth it to have a concrete focus for discussion. we can always archive it if it proves too troubling.

I've tried to add in your concerns to the box above. did I do it effectively? I removed point 5 (since that generally seems to meet with objections). I'm unclear on your 'identified as possibly affecting intelligence' statement: does that mean that these genes are one of several candidates for explaining differences in intelligence, or that these genes do explain intelligence, but only in certain cases, or is there some other meaning of the phrase? --Ludwigs2 06:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be either of the two possibilities you mentioned. The current state of research about this is what I described in my reply to Muntuwandi: some studies show these genes to influence IQ, while other studies have failed to reproduce this result. That could be because something was wrong with the one of the two groups of studies, or it could be because these genes influence IQ in some cases but not others. Any conclusion we try to draw about which of the studies are correct would be synthesis, though, so I don’t think figuring out the answer to this is necessary for determining what should go in the article.

I also think you could have modified point #5 to something clearer, but I guess that’s not really important.

If you’re sure that I should go ahead with my proposal about article structure, I guess I will. It looks like this issue about social vs. genetic meanings of race is mostly resolved, in any case. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

gotcha on the meaning point. I thought it best to remove 5 because you weren't the only participant to comment on it, and I wasn't that sure of it when I wrote it. if others think it should come back, though, I'll happily resurrect a revised version.

and yeah, go ahead with the structure. the trick will be to keep the conversation from breaking down into ultra-detailed disputes; as long as we can keep focused on the forest to the exclusion of the trees, I think it will be a good thing. --Ludwigs2 06:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I’ve posted my structure proposal now, so you and other users are welcome to comment on it. I especially want to get DJ’s opinion, since several of us are hoping for him to eventually write the new version of the article, and most of my structure proposal is based on the proposals he’s made. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sociological Race vs Genes

One thing that may not be clear from the above back and forth is that it's certainly the case that sociological race has a biological component. It's certainly possible to reach genetic conclusions about any population of people. So in the sense that you might be able to study the gene population of any given group and come up with a conclusion, it's certainly possible to do that with sociological race. You could do the same thing with height, eye color, hair color, weight, or any other phenotypical trait. You can also create genetic clusters based on phenotypical traits if those very same traits are used to guide the clustering algorithms.

Above Aryaman writes:

The distinction set up below between "race as a social construct" and "race as a biological category" is an inflammatory and largely false dichotomy.

And in some sense he's correct. For the greatest part, SIRE is determined by skin color, and the SIRE of your parents. And just like eye color, you can create genetic clusters based on that information. But that's putting the cart before the horse. At 23 and me [7] there are over 100 genetic traits that can be tested for. We could pick any small subset of these traits and create genetic clusters about them. We could construct the genetic clusters for the "Cystic Fibrosis/Type 1 Diabetes" races. We could create clusters for the "Bloom's Syndrome/eye color" race. I think what confuses a lot of people is that these genetic+SIRE clusters do not indicate anything more an external structure imposed on genetic data.

But (again) that's not to say that genetic inferences cannot be made by studying the IQ results of the "Cystic Fibrosis/Type 1 Diabetes" races. The gene clusters do represent different sets of gene pools. But it's still an open questions as to whether these clustering techniques capture significant genetic variation beyond the trait from which they were constructed.

Given that all of the research generally uses SIRE information, and it's not clear that SIRE based genetic clustering captures significant human variation beyond SIRE information, and given that we currently have no definition of distinct genetic races, the conclusions that are made about studies based on SIRE information really only speak to the populations defined by SIRE information, as opposed to genetic information.

This is illustrated particularly well in the study discussed above [8]. The researchers started with a body of data where participants had selected one of five different racial categories (plus other). But using genetic clustering, they could not create the five clusters corresponding to the SIRE information without using the self reported data. In fact, as input the software required the researchers to identify the number of clusters to construct. They were not able to infer the number of racial genetic clusters directly from the data. There is a wonderful image on the Human genetic clustering page which also illustrates this. Are there 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 genetic races? Is there only one genetic race? Are there more than six? In fact, with enough data you should be able to extract hundreds (or thousands) of clusters which generally correspond to subtrees in the human hereditary tree. Does that mean that there are hundreds of races? A.Prock 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And would your arbitrarily constructed "races" have any predictive value or correlation with other traits, as actual races do? No, so they are pointless. mikemikev (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're basing this on, and whether or not this statement applies to self identified race/ethnicity. A.Prock 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether I think SIRE has any predictive value? mikemikev (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Racial clusters constructed on arbitrary genetic traits other than skin color would certainly predict those traits. Maybe you could clarify what you're saying? A.Prock 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Mike - can you clarify what you mean by 'arbitrarily constructed' and 'actual' races? I'm not sure I see what you're getting at. --Ludwigs2 00:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well A.Prock said you could construct a "Bloom's Syndrome/eye color" race. I don't see what his point is. What further information could you deduce from that category, seeing as it would be essentially randomly drawn from the human population. mikemikev (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it would be any more or less random than using SIRE. A.Prock 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, go into a little more detail about the selection process for your "Bloom's Syndrome/eye color" race. mikemikev (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the exact same process as SIRE. You select some trait which has a genetic basis, a set of markers -- preferably ones associated with that trait -- collect the data, then apply a clustering algorithm to the genetic markers. A.Prock 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean are you going to include people with blue eyes or brown eyes? mikemikev (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And I think you've confused your point by choosing a disease which tends to affect Jewish people. mikemikev (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike - you still haven't answered my question: can you clarify what you mean by 'arbitrarily constructed' and 'actual' races? It's these kinds of issues that need to get ironed out if the mediation is going to move forward. --Ludwigs2 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm refering to A.Prock saying you could construct races based on randomly selected combinations of traits; he used "Cystic Fibrosis/Type 1 Diabetes" race and "Bloom's Syndrome/eye color" race. But racial traits are not randomly selected, they go together, and they may indicate other as yet unknown traits and genes, as well as having a proven usefulness in medical indication. So I fail to see a point.

This whole 'genetic cluster' business is really not so relevant. All genome studies tell us with regard to R&I is this: "We observe gene distribution differences between races/ethnic groups. We don't know what those genes are doing, so genetic or environmental causes of group differences in IQ are both equally possible." We can put a statement into the article to this effect. (Although I heard there have been some recent discoveries of genes linked to intelligence which are unevely distributed among races, I've yet to check that). mikemikev (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with that particular statement, Mike, is that it seems to presume that group differences in intelligence exist in a solidly proven way (I get that from the so genetic or environmental causes of group differences in IQ are both equally possible bit). is that what you meant to say? --Ludwigs2 18:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If the genetic cluster business is not relevant, we are back to the point that race is not a reliable indicator of the heritability of intelligence. I do not see Mikemikev asatisfactorally responding to Aprock, and I think Aprock is bringing up a very important point.

Mikmikev suggests that race is arbitraary and thus uninformative and I think is mixing up the argument. The point is that race, biologically conceived, is to a degree arbitrary with regards to much of the genome and thus uninformative. But race viewed as a social construct is highly informative. For example, race socially sonctructed could in the 1940s help one predict where in the bus a particular person would sit, if they were travelling in Missisipi. race also was highly predictive of the quality of schooling one had, which some people ar eleast consider relevant to IQ score. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said races were arbitrary! Slrubenstein you fail to understand. mikemikev (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediator, please check what I said and what slrubenstein accuses me of saying, they are opposite. This is not acceptable. mikemikev (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, you said race based on anything except SIRE was arbitrary. A.Prock 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazen Lies! Provide the quote. mikemikev (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

mikemikev wrote: "And would your arbitrarily constructed "races" have any predictive value or correlation with other traits, as actual races do? No" Maybe I'm not understanding you though. Can you clarify what you mean? What makes some races arbitrary and others not? A.Prock 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What I said was arbitrary, for the third time, were the 'races' "Cystic Fibrosis/Type 1 Diabetes" and "Bloom's Syndrome/eye color". I could envisage a genomic definition of race. If we got that precise there would be no need to group people, and could consider each person (or organism) on an individual basis. Until then SIRE is our best fit.

There could be other classifications developed according to traits which seem to correlate with other traits, calling them 'races' would just be confusing the issue. mikemikev (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)My apologies. What I meant to say was this: you referred to a certain conceptualization of race as "arbitrarily constructed" and therefore "pointless." Yet you seem to believe that some kind of biologically based concept of race is not arbitrary and has a point. To be clear: Rushton's use of race is fringe science because it is arbitrarily constructed and pointless. Social scientists look at race as socially constructed. This does not mean it is arbitrarily constructed, and if we were to say so in an article we would be misrepresenting the science. Moreover, not being arbitrarily constructed, there are contexts in which it has great predictive power. Right now it seems to have predictive power for mean IQ scores. But we are still talking about a social construction, not a biological category or group. Why race and certain mean IQ scores correlate is still an unknown. I hope I have not misrepresented anyone in this. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you even realise you're contradicting yourself? I'm really done with this point. Race is a social construct, a useful biological category, and a genetic reality. The interplay between these things is really the point of R&I, and trying to deny one of them exists makes you fringe! mikemikev (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gene" and "genetic" in the context of psychometric research

I'd like to point something out. Hopefully it will help to get us back on track.

"Gene" in psychometric research is a stand-in substantive for "hereditary". Psychometricians can measure the degree to which a trait is heritable - which is, of course, not the same thing as identifying specific genes which are involved in the expression of that trait. The actual "genetic" research which is pulled into this debate is secondary in the sense that it attempts to corroborate psychometric findings regarding heritability. When a psychometrician says a trait has a large "genetic" component, he's saying it is highly heritable. He's not claiming to have identified "genes" for intelligence - though he may well take information from genetic research to corroborate his psychometric claim. The use of "race" in psychometric research should be understood and presented in light of this fact. In other words, whether "races" can be described "genetically" is of little to no interest to the psychometrician. What is of great interest to him is the fact that "races" appear to differ significantly in their expression of a highly heritable trait. This debate centres around trying to figure out why that is. --Aryaman (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that heritability isn't exactly equivalent to genetics. I have previously suggested that genetics of intelligence, which currently redirects to heritability of IQ, should in fact be a separate article. In most cases where a trait is highly heritable, a specific gene or set of genes which affect the trait will be identified. However, with epigenetic inheritance, traits can be passed on without the influence of genes but with the influence of other external factors. Though epigenetics is beyond the scope of this controversy, nonetheless it is useful to point out that it is possible for a trait to be heritable without specific gene action. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Wapondaponda, who I think makes and has made the case quite elegantly. If Aryaman agrees with Wapondaponda we have made majore progress towards resoving conflicts. If Aryaman disagrees with Muntuwandi then this is another issue to address in this mediation. Do we have consensus to support Wapondaponda? My ie is simple: a non-biologist is certainly within her rights to ask if some difference between blacks and whites is genetic (heritable). It is for biologists to say "We cannot answer that question," or "We can answer that question, but we have not yet found the answer," or "We have the answer." Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I understood Wapondaponda's comment as being in agreement with my own, I have no problem agreeing with it. The fact is, we don't know. It may well turn out that both the environmental and hereditarian models are partially correct, e.g. the difference could, in fact, be due to biological traits which are heritable within social races but which arise primarily as a result of environmental interaction, the nature of which is largely determined by culture, and which in turn shapes biologically important factors such as reproduction patterns, longevity, and the transmission of successful traits. One would think that genetic research will eventually answer the question for us. But I suspect that by the time we are in a position to postulate a relatively conclusive answer, we will have rendered that answer largely meaningless. --Aryaman (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, what is SIRE? Also:

> Do we have consensus to support Wapondaponda?

Sadly, we don't. I'm as tired of this as you are, but it's not just opinionated people looking at this article; curious people read it too, and they expect the truth.

Suppose you took the green-eyed people and called them a "race", as AProck suggested, and suppose most of the green-eye race self-reported having 11 toes, but almost everyone else has 10. Then assuming that green eyes is genetically determined:

1) Would you deny that having green eyes correlates with having too many toes?

2) Would you deny that having extra toes is probably genetic?

3) Would you agree that the green-eyed stranger who just walked in the front door probably has 11 toes?

4) Would you call the "green-eyed people, on average, have more toes" theory unreasonable? Is it fringe science unworthy of Wikipedia?

4) Though it's POSSIBLE that extra toes are caused by Frankenstien-like surgery in the delivery room, would you want that statement to be put in Wikipedia?

So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?

> It's certainly possible to reach genetic conclusions about any population of people.

Yes, and one genetic conclusion that strongly fits the data is that the negroid population, on average, has the intelligence corresponding to an IQ of 80. At very least, it's certainly the MOST LIKELY explanation of their average IQ sore being 80.

What's the problem with saying so? It's not a racist judgment; it's a passive, emotionless observation. TechnoFaye Kane 08:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

SIRE is "Self Identified Race/Ethnicity". With respect to the gedankenexperiment, if there was strong evidence that environmental effects common to the green eyed people were known to cause the growth of an extra toe, that would have to be considered as well. A.Prock 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, it doesn't sound like an "emotionless" argument. Using words like "stupid" isn't helpful during dispute resolution. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FRINGE Debate

I feel that the issue of WP:FRINGE has to come to a conclusion. We've attempted it before, but the discussion always devolves into a pissing contest, with no clear result emerging. Apparently Slrubenstein and I are the main contenders here, though I suspect several other editors have strong opinions on this matter. I'd like for us to discuss this at length with the goal of reaching a conclusion so we can put the issue to rest and move on to other things.

If I may be so bold, I would summarize Slrubenstein's main concern in the matter of WP:FRINGE as that he does not want to see a "fringe" view, in this case hereditarian explanations of the IQ gap between the races, presented as a mainstream academic thesis. Taken at face value, this is a perfectly valid concern.

My main concern in regards to WP:FRINGE is that I don't want to see a "minority" view presented as a "fringe" or "pseudo-scientific" view unworthy of serious academic discussion. This, too, is a perfectly valid concern.

If the above is correct, then our central conflict here is over whether the hereditarian position is a "fringe"/"pseudo-scientific" view or a "minority" view. In what follows, I shall present my own reasons for viewing the hereditarian position as a "minority" position which deserves proportional coverage in the article. I would appreciate it greatly if other editors would comment on each one, either voicing agreement or disagreement so we can identify where, exactly, the rubbing points are.

5 reasons why the hereditarian model is not "fringe"

1. The proponents of the hereditarian model are on equal footing with their peers in terms of qualifications and academic standing. In fact, Jensen, probably the most prominent proponent of the hereditarian model, was called to testify before a hearing of the U.S. government on this subject, so it should be clear that at least one of the proponents of hereditaranism has very good credentials. While it is certainly the case that highly qualified scientists can make bogus and idiosyncratic claims, we cannot reject the work of hereditarians as "fringe" on the grounds that they are not recognized as qualified experts in their field, as is generally the case with the authors of "fringe" theories.

2. The arguments advanced in favour of the hereditarian model are presented in respectable academic journals, and are debated in earnest by their detractors in those same journals. While it is certainly the case that academic journals can publish work containing bogus and idiosyncratic claims, we cannot reject the work of hereditarians as "fringe" on the grounds that it is viewed as beneath serious consideration by the academic community, as is generally the case with the work of "fringe" scholars.

3. The only academic study to be conducted on the popularity of environmental and hereditarian models for explaining the difference in IQ between races concluded that 45% of polled experts believed that the difference is a product of both genetic and environmental factors while 15% believed that the difference is due to environmental factors alone. 24% believed that there is insufficient data for coming to a conclusion, and only 1% believed it is due to genetic factors only. While it is certainly the case that this study may have been conducted improperly (though there has never been any such criticism of the study) or that, if conducted today, the results would be different (a completely speculative claim), we cannot reject the hereditarian model as "fringe" on the grounds that it is only held by a tiny minority of scholars, as is generally the case with the work of "fringe" scholars. The fact is, we simply do not know how many scholars hold which views today, and the evidence we do have indicates that the hereditarian model is, assuming it has declined at all in popularity, a significant minority view. Whether the 15% holding to the 100% environmental thesis has gone up considerably is also entirely uncertain.

4. The APA report states that neither the environmental model nor the hereditarian model have proven successful in explaining the IQ gap. While the hereditarian model suffers from a lack of direct evidence, the environmental model suffers from the inability to account for known facts. The APA concludes that we still do not know what causes the IQ gap, though we may expect more in the way of tangible results from the environmental model, as at present the hereditarian model can only provide us with evidence which strengthens a probability indirectly. While it is certainly the case that the APA report can be seen as rejecting one part of the hereditarian model as suffering from insufficient evidence, we cannot reject the hereditarian model as "fringe" on the grounds that it has been deemed unfit as a serious scientific thesis, as is generally the case with the work of "fringe" scholars.

5. According to Wikipedia policy, a "fringe" view is one which "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". The hereditarian model is not "fringe" according to this definition for the following reasons:

a) The prevailing or mainstream view as embodied in the APA report is that we do not know what causes the IQ gap. (This position was also held by 24% of polled experts in 1987.) Taken at face value, this means that both the environmental and the hereditarian model depart from the mainstream view in that they propose to know what most scholars agree is not known. However, this is to be expected, as they are attempting to overcome a recognized gap in our knowledge, and doing so is tacitly supported by the APA.

b) Claims that the hereditarian model is "fringe" require, among other things, evidence that the environmental model is, indeed, the prevailing or mainstream view. There is no such evidence to my knowledge. The only evidence available shows that for every expert holding the environmental position, there are three holding the hereditarian position.

c) Claims that the hereditarian model is "fringe" must demonstrate that it departs significantly from the mainstream view. Granted that we can establish what the mainstream view is, it remains unproven that the departure in this case is significant. In fact, the similarities between the two positions far outweigh their differences, and both are equally valid hypothetical models for explaining the IQ gap. Their difference resides in one point only, and that point remains one of serious academic discussion.

d) Claims that the hereditarian model is "fringe" must demonstrate that is has little or no scientific support. This is clearly not the case, as the Jensen & Rushton report makes is clear that hereditarians support their arguments through a careful analysis of scientifically gathered data, and do not rely upon wild conjecture and/or speculation. Further, they feel themselves in a position to successfully refute the arguments of their opponents on both logical and evidential grounds, and do so forcefully.

For these reasons, I feel justified in maintaining that the work of hereditarians is not "fringe", and that it deserves adequate coverage on Wikipedia as a minority view. As I said, please review each point and comment accordingly with a view towards concluding this dispute for good. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Heritability is a measure of the portion of variation within a group that arises from genes. It does not apply to variation between groups. This is something that every geneticist knows. Some psychologists do not know it, but this does not surprise me since most psychologists are not trained in genetics whereas geneticists ... well, imagine how damn hard they work for their PhDs in genetics. This is also why when one book by Rushton was mailed, for free, to all the members of the American Anthropological Association, most threw out the free copies and many complained to the AAA leadership. This is why Rushton is considered fringe. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Psychologists such as Jensen are fully aware of this, Slrubenstein. If you had read through the extended exchange between Lewontin and Jensen (1970), for example, which occurred as a result of his Harvard Educational Review article published a few years prior (1968, I believe), then you would know that this point has been addressed at great length in the literature. It was not grounds for dismissing his position as "fringe" in 1970, it was not grounds for dismissing it as "fringe" in 1987 (when 45% of polled experts agreed with him on this point), and it is not grounds for dismissing it as "fringe" today.

I would appreciate it if you could indicate which of the points I listed above you agree with and which you disagree with so that I can find out exactly what your reasons are for insisting that any and all things hereditarian be labelled "fringe". Please place your comments directly beneath the point you are referring to so we can keep everything relatively organized. --Aryaman (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Varoon Arya wrote:

The prevailing or mainstream view as embodied in the APA report is that we do not know what causes the IQ gap. (This position was also held by 24% of polled experts in 1987.) Taken at face value, this means that both the environmental and the hereditarian model depart from the mainstream view in that they propose to know what most scholars agree is not known.

It's important that we are clear here. This is not what the APA report says. One sentence is being taken out of the broader context of the report. The report clearly differentiates between environmental effects on intelligence which are well documented, and genetic/hereditarian effects for which there is no direct evidence. If we are going to use sources, it's of the utmost importance that we do so faithfully. With respect to the specific bullet points the APA directly addresses (a) (b) (c) and (d) in such a way as to indicate that the hereditarian model was not the then current scientific model. A.Prock 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your last two statements are correct. However, you (again) either fail to grasp or fail to admit that the hereditarian model proposes a roughly 50/50 mix of environmental and genetic causes. Many of those same environmental factors discussed in the APA report are also advanced as part of the hereditarian model, and cannot be seen as only supporting the 100% environmental thesis, if at all. It seems that very few here realise the theoretical extremity of the environmental position, and think that any study which claims an environmental factor as influencing intelligence is a strike against the hereditarian model and in favour of the environmental model. It's not. --Aryaman (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the hereditarian model just fine. This section isn't about the particulars of the hereditarian model and whether or not I personally understand them (I do). It's about whether or not it is considered WP:FRINGE. According to the (a)-(d) criterion, the APA report indicates that it is WP:FRINGE. I should add that I have no trouble with presenting the hereditarian viewpoint in the article, as long as it is clear that it does not represent current mainstream science. I think this is where it gets muddy. It's not the research which is WP:FRINGE, various conclusions are. A.Prock 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really havwe anythinjg to add to this. Aryaman presented my position in the basic conflict accurately. I would only add that I think there may be a need to distinguish specifically between Jensen, Rushton, and Murray and Herrnstein. Jensen is taken more seriously by other social scientists than the other three, at least when it comes to this debate. I do not know why, I only see that this is or seems to me to be the case. So in my mind, we can move closer to agreement if we disaggregate this "hereditarian hypothesis" and talk specifically of the views of Jensen, Rushton, and Murray and Herrnstein.

The Neiss et. al. document makes it clear that using biological race to explain between group differences in average IQ is fringe. That we do not yet have a clear explanation for the average differences does not mean that all explanations are fringe. In fact, I think the issue here is not "explanation" but "direction for research." If a significant amount of the difference is heritable, then it would be reasonable to invest money into looking for the gene or cluster of genes that are the cause. I think it is a misrepresentation of the mainstream (as I see it) view that the cause of the difference is environmental. The point of such a statement is not obviously to say we have found the cause, it is to say that we know where to prioritize our research. It makes more sense to invest money in research into possible environmental causes. The article - Captian Occam, please take note - has to be clear about this. We are not really talking about two competing causes or explanations, because niether side yet knows what the real cause is. In fact, there may be many different causes. A 100% environmental "view" can still suppose that there are many different "causes."

At stake here is not just a question of what is minority versus what is fringe, at stake here is clarity about the argument. I think characterizing it as an argument between two "causes" misrepresents the science and muddies the waters. No one knows what the cause is. There are in fact two questions: (1) where do we look for a cause? Is it a gene or set of genes? or is it something in the environment, which can be any number of things. (2) Is there a proper treatment? Murry and Herrnstein make this very clear, the question is how to deal with economic inequality in America, and, some have argued, world-wide. How should governments invest their money? These are real questions that are being debated. And it is very evident that many of the so-called hereditarians are advancing their theories in the context of these public policy debates. I am not trying to stonewall anyone. This is just a fact and I do not see how anyone can deny it. One reason money is invested into research on the causes for IQ differences is because the results have value and the value has to do with public policy, including how we invest money in educational resources and in social welfare programs. The Neiss et. al. document which we have agreed is a starting point addresses this issue directly: it notes that much discussion of the correlation between race and IQ occurs in the context of public policy debates, and that Neiss et. al. will not address that set of debates. I think Neiss et. al. made a wise choice and I do not see why we do not, also: an article on public policy debates, including the contributions of sociologists and psychologists and people with PhDs in education to those debates, and another article on the pure science. Wikipedia articles reflect the distinction between pure and applied physics, I do not see why we cannot doe the same here. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) If I may throw in a couple of comments about 'fringeness'

• A 'fringe' view generally implies a fairly significant departure from the core research assumptions of the related field(s). Offering an opinion that goes against common knowledge in a given field is generally not fringe: it may be right or wrong, but as long as it can potentially be tested under the field's established research model it is 'proper' research. ideas become fringe when their proponents (who may be well-established scientists) start rejecting the very research methodology that would be used to test the idea, often because that methodology works against the theory.
• Any given idea may have some researchers with fringe approaches and some with conventional approaches. There's nothing wrong with saying researcher X presents a fringe idea, whereas researcher Y (who holds a similar perspective) is not fringe because he hasn't stepped out side of the research model

does that help any? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is helpful - I don't disagree with any of this. But I do think we have to deal with another variable: different disciplines. It seems like people with PhD's in Education use the term "heritability" differently than people with PhDs in biology. Is it possible for a fringe theory in biology to be mainstream in Education? To go directly to Arya's first point on why the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, he states that Jensen is a scholar on equal standing with others. I think this is the point of the problem. In the Jesus article some people have tried to add views that Jesus was a reworking of an ancient near eastern myth. The leading sources for this theory are PhDs - one has a PhD in geology, the other in English. The consensus at that page is that this does not qualify them as authorities on Jesus - one would ned a PhD in classics or ancient history etc. We have shcolars from five different disciplines who have made claims about race and intelligence: anthropology (biological as well as cultural anthropologists), sociology, psychology, and biology. Is it enough to say one is an "academic" in good standing, or must one be a "biologist" in good standing? My approach has been to take biologists and biological anthropologists (which would include population geneticists and molecular geneticists) as the point of reference for claims about heritability. So this is one major point of dispute.

I want to note that in every other regard I agree with Aprock's points. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think these concerns can be handled with proper contextualization: make clear the perspective each author is coming from, clarify any differences in language in the article, and make the interdisciplinary differences clear as part of the over-arching debate. any author who can't be properly contextualized that way probably is fringe (though I'll leave that as a matter for case-by-case judgement). --Ludwigs2 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as the context clearly illustrates what the mainstream scientific understanding is, that sounds fine. A.Prock 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the practical question is how to eal with disciplinary differences, and conflicts between disciplnes, into the structure of the article. I also still see a diference between scientiss responding to public polic debates, and developing research projects that are driven by public polcy agendas, versus pure research. Do we handle that by two articles, as I have suggested? Otherwise, what is the best way to handle hat in the structure of one article? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to solve the WP:FRINGE issue. But, instead of talking about whether a particular theory is fringe or a particular scholar is fringe, I think it much better to focus on a specific article. Consider Jensen & Rushton's Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Does this article meet the definition of WP:FRINGE? If Yes, then I don't think it belongs in the article. If No, then I think that it does. In other words, instead of saying "The heriditarian position argues ..." or "Rushton argues ... ", we can just agree that "Rushton and Jenson (2005) argue . . ." If we can reach consensus about a list on non-fringe articles (and I think we can), we can just restrict most/all of the Wikipedia article to them and avoid having this fight every few weeks. David.Kane (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't have time to read the whole thing, but the conclusions article certainly have the patina of fringe. It would be useful to see who referenced the survey, and in what way. That's not to say that the conclusions shouldn't be represented in R/I. Rather, they need to be labeled as speculative and outside the mainstream. A.Prock 01:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to find reactions to specific articles, but here are two comments in a long thread that include dozens and dozens of other studies which show a wide variety of results with respect to R/I [9],[10]. I don't have time to go through any of these at the moment since I'm heading out for vacation. But please consider the wealth of research into the topic before relying on Rushton and Jenson as a representative survey of research. (ETA, see also [11]. A.Prock 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In the hope of reaching a compromise, we have agreed that the article should present the purely academic (non-political) side of the race and intelligence debate within the wider context of the human sciences. This would mean including a statement to the effect that:

For disciplines such as biology and anthropology, the concept of "race" is now considered too imprecise to be of any practical value in advancing our current state of knowledge, as the means and methodologies of those disciplines have long since overcome the constraints which made the concept meaningful in the first place. For example, though "race" can be used in a meaningful way when discussing the distribution of particular medical disorders and the success of certain treatments, the fact that we are able to create personal genetic profiles makes doing so largely superfluous. In the social sciences, as well as in criminology, race remains a useful concept provided it is understood as a primarily social construct, though one which may have important biological implications, both for population groups as well as for individuals. In the study of race and intelligence, those biological implications become of central importance.

As far as I understand the situation, nothing I have just written should be considered contentious or POV in any way. I do not object in the least to prefacing the article in such a way, as to do so helps to contextualize the research. As I see it, that should satisfy the requirements of contextualization as understood under WP:MNA.

As Aprock said, and I'd like to quote him:

It's not the research which is WP:FRINGE, various conclusions are.

This is why we suggested a data-centric approach in the first place. The research into race and intelligence is not "fringe" by the standards of Wikipedia policy. Some conclusions drawn from that research, however, are considered highly contentious - and that is true for conclusions of either type. But the only such conclusion I can see as being properly labelled "fringe" is the view that 100% of the IQ difference between races is genetic in origin. It was a fringe view 20 years ago, and it very likely remains a fringe view today.

We are spending too much energy on labelling views and too little on neutrally presenting the work of these scholars. One thing upon which nearly all experts agree is that the environment plays a vital role in the appearance of differences in IQ between races. Jensen, for example, was one of the first to confirm that proper nutrition is probably the most important factor influencing the development of cognitive ability in the last weeks of gestation and the first weeks after birth, and has noted that malnutrition during this period has a permanently detrimental effect on intelligence in later life. He also warns that, in those populations where malnutrition has been a problem, any collected IQ data must be treated with great caution. By sticking researchers such as Jensen into a "hereditarian" camp, we obscure the fact that they have been highly active in researching both genetic and environmental factors which might influence intelligence. The only part of Jensen's psychometric work which is contentious is his claim that the high heritability of IQ within groups combined with the fact that environmental factors have been hitherto unable to account for all of the IQ gap between groups lends a good deal of credibility to the notion that the residual differences (typically between 40% and 60% after correcting for known environmental factors) are non-environmental or genetic in origin. This is sometimes referred to as the "Default Hypothesis", and he is not alone in the attempt to corroborate this hypothesis with findings from other disciplines. None of this work departs from the mainstream in any significant way. In fact, Jensen's detractors (most notably Lewontin) can admit that the Default Hypothesis might very well be true. What they focus on - and rightly so - is that Jensen can provide no direct evidence for this claim - only a deductive argument corroborated by tangential evidence. Pointing out the weaknesses in someone's work and dismissing it as "fringe" are two different things. The first is roughly equivalent to saying "Possibly, but without better evidence, I'm not convinced". The other is the way scholars call "bullshit". Though Jensen's conclusion in this particular matter is not popular, and does not enjoy the support of the APA, his work is "mainstream science". Can we agree on this?

To Slrubenstein regarding "policy" issues: I would like you to read Eugene Rabinowitch's article Jensen vs. Lewontin: A Comment published in the BAS from May, 1970. (It is freely available online.) I think this position needs to be presented first in any discussion of the policy aspect of the race and intelligence debate. I hope you agree.

Further, I don't see what makes a "hereditarian" who comments on policy issues any different from an "environmentalist" who comments on policy issues. You can't seriously claim that hereditarians are the only ones trying to influence public policy through their research. So, what is your point here? --Aryaman (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would personally be happy with a data-centric view. The problem with that is that there is far too much data (30+ or 100+ years worth) to present all of the data. The problem then becomes one of selecting a representative set of data. And biased selection of data can lead to cherry picking, something which Nisbett accuess Rushton and Jensen of [12]. Of course, in a world of he-said, she-said, Jensen and Rushton are just as quick to accuse Nisbett of the same [13]. Moving to a data-centric might not help too much when it comes to avoiding POV issues. A.Prock 09:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That depends entirely upon us as editors. If we can agree that everyone is working towards the same goal in good faith, then we can discuss how to go about sorting out the data in a fair and neutral way. It would be helpful if the involved editors would procure copies of the major works so we can mine their bibliographies for material. But, I don't want to get ahead of where we're at in the mediation.

If we have reached some kind of agreement regarding this issue, I'd like for it to be made explicit. We seem to agree that, while research into race and intelligence is not "fringe", some of the conclusions drawn from that research are highly contentious and need to be presented as such in the article. If that is the case, then I can consider the matter resolved for the remainder of this mediation. --Aryaman (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I generally agree. It's a fine distinction, but one that I think is more than reasonable. I just hope this doesn't mean we are going to start putting Rushton's race and penis size data here.  :) A.Prock 10:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that kind of material should be filed under "corroborative" evidence and, provided it's only advanced by one scholar (I think Rushton stands alone on the vast and perilous frontier of penis-size correlations ), can be listed under his or her name. --Aryaman (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)