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)
• Agree chinpaya (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 9 March 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)

I would like to point out that it's impossible to have a data-centric article about race and intelligence as you can not measure intelligence, partly because you can't even define it. The data measures tests scores on IQ tests and other tests. That does not measure intelligence, but how good you are at taking these kinds of tests. A data centric article would have to be renamed "Race and IQ". The problems with the lack of data and the minority centric view would then be relevant, but for Race and Intelligence it's not relevant as there simply is no data whatsoever. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:05, 6 March 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)

Another credible biologist that comes to mind is Ernst W. Mayr. See: The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality.--XO^10 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

XO^10: pelase refrain from jumping into mediation discussions without signing onto the agreements and participating fully. if you just want to throw in single point, talk to someone who is a dedicated participant and convince them to include it for you. thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 20 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)

time to start the process

Ok, I think we have hammered out most of the points that we can for the moment. I suggest that we adopt this 'single editor' approach and get a version of the article created. then we can examine the result and see if any new concerns raise themselves. I'll add an FAQ of the current resolveds here in this section in a bit.

DJ and Varoon Arya seem to have consensus for making a draft - does one of you want to accept the task? --Ludwigs2 19:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You may recall that when I made this suggestion it was not a single editor suggestion. Here's what I wrote: "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." Unless we have a named set of non-writing editors to help shepherd the process, I don't think a single-writer approach will work out. I was also wondering if we can set up a mediation faq/summary which represents the points of consensus, possibly including it in the header of the article's talk page. A.Prock 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all point out problems. mikemikev (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

well, obviously, the other parties would participate from the talk page. the sole advantage of a single-editor mode is that it precludes reverts, cross-editing, and other article-space issues that can monkey-wrench the process. the goal here is to get a version up and running that's close to complete, as quickly as possible; then we can all sit back and do a round of critiques and discussions. basically it's a system for building a forest without getting bogged down in fights over particular trees. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I said. I specifically think that the process should have a named set of dedicated editors to guide the process. If that set isn't named, the primary writer will either be engulfed with a cacophony of talk page debate which will either have to be ignored, or will hamper productivity. If the primary writer knows which editors he should primarily work with, he will be free to spend more time being productive. Again, if this approach isn't taken I expect the any attempt to rewrite the article will be difficult and unproductive. If you want to not get bogged down in fights, establishing a small set of co-editors is crucial. A.Prock 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I had just assumed that the people involved in mediation would be the only people involved in the discussion, and I was prepared to exclude others from the conversation until the first set of revisions was done. there's only 8 or 9 people involved - that shouldn't produce too much of a cacophany - and I'm quite up to the task of fending off others for a short period while we get the article stabilized. --Ludwigs2 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is one issue that has been overlooked. There is an assumption that everyone has agreed that the article should be rewritten. The default option, which is the article remain the same as it was before the dispute erupted, has not been considered. It is indeed possible that, but for the few minor changes that have been argued, that some editors may feel that there is no need for any major changes. I recall that RI had been stable for a couple of months and the dispute arose because some editors wanted to add more of Jensen/Rushton's work. IOW, one side of the dispute is requesting major changes, but it is not clear what those on the other side of the dispute think. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(to Ludwig2)I think 8 or 9 editors trying to tell one writer what to do is far too many. I think something on the order of two or three is more reasonable. To be clear, I am not really in favor of just handing the article to one writer and having everyone else squabble over what's being written. That seems far too close to what's gone on in the past. That said, I'm not against every editor being part of the process. What I'm suggesting is that a couple of editors be elevated to the level of "listen to these guys first". A.Prock 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(to Wapondaponda) One writer does not mean that the article needs to be rewritten, just that one person is in charge of doing all the actual content edits until mediation is over, whatever those edits may be. A.Prock 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

“The default option, which is the article remain the same as it was before the dispute erupted, has not been considered. It is indeed possible that, but for the few minor changes that have been argued, that some editors may feel that there is no need for any major changes.”

This question has been discussed and resolved. The decision was that the article should take a “data-centric” structure, which is not the structure that it currently has. By necessity, changing its overall structure will have to involve rewriting a large portion of it.

“I recall that RI had been stable for a couple of months and the dispute arose because some editors wanted to add more of Jensen/Rushton's work.”

The only reason why the article was “stable” for a few months is because anytime anyone tried to change anything about it, the discussion would devolve into a debate over things like the meaning of “race” and whether the hereditarian view should be considered “fringe”. These arguments would never reach any kind of resolution, which made it impossible to obtain consensus for any significant changes to the article. Now that they’ve been resolved during the course of the mediation, though, I think the assumption is that we’ll be proceeding with the changes that were previously prevented by our inability to resolve these issues on the article talk page.

Our inability to resolve these questions, and the consequent inability to make any significant changes to the article, was the reason why we sought mediation in the first place. By agreeing to the mediation, all of us (including you) were agreeing that mediation was a worthwhile course of action in order to solve this problem, which in turn is based on the assumption that the problem (our inability to make significant changes to the articles) was worth solving to begin with.

“DJ and Varoon Arya seem to have consensus for making a draft - does one of you want to accept the task?”

Both of them seem to have dropped out of the mediation process, at least for the time being, possibly because it seemed to have stalled for a little while when we were all arguing over minor wording issues. If you want them to answer this question, you’ll probably need to get them involved in the discussion here again. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any consensus that the article should be a "data driven" article. A.Prock 03:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, we spent quite a while resolving this, and I think almost everyone agreed about it. Because of the way Ludwig has moved things around on this page, I’m no longer sure of where all of the discussion about this is, but perhaps he can remind you of how the discussion went if you really don’t remember.

Considering the amount of time it took for us to resolve this the last time we discussed it, I really hope it’s not going to be necessary for us to rehash this entire discussion now. Ludwig, do you have any advice here? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, for the umpteenth time, would you kindly avoid putting "consensus" in other peoples mouths. A consensus exists when editors involved, including those on different sides of a dispute, explicitly and unambiguously state that there is a consensus. In the absence of such statements, consensus should not be assumed. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There were editors on both sides of the dispute who agreed with this; I’m pretty sure that Ramdrake and Slrubenstein both did. At the very least, they both have acknowledged that a data-centric approach was the one we’d be using, without expressing any problem with this idea. There was enough of a consensus for everyone involved in the mediation to be agreed for around a month that this was the approach we’d be using, until the two of you decided tonight that you had a problem with this decision.

I don’t think we should have to discuss this again. I don’t know how to make this any clearer: it was discussed at length already, any additional discussion will only repeat the earlier discussion, and it will also sidetrack us from the topic that Ludwig intended for us to be discussing here. More generally, if topics that we’ve already resolved in this mediation are going to start having to be revisited like this, it’s going to prevent us from making any progress towards resolving the mediation. In the interest in preventing the mediation from being any more sidetracked by this than it has been already, I’m probably not going to reply if anyone tries to re-discuss this issue here any further. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I suppose this is a good litmus test for whether or not I should continue to participate in the mediation. When I was planning on quitting around a month ago, it was because I was doubtful about whether any conclusion we reached in this mediation was likely to make a long-term difference, or whether some users were likely to reject it or deny it at some point later on without any additional discussion about it. This example is a lot more clear-cut than the one about whether to continue using the version of the article that DJ wrote while it was called Between-group differences in IQ, because in this case whether or not to use a data-centric approach was one of the main topics that the mediation has focused on.

If we can’t even stick with our earlier decision about this, then I have zero confidence in users’ ability to stick with any other decision we make about the article in this mediation. And if everything else that we spend weeks or months resolving here is potentially subject to being rejected on the spur of the moment, then my participation here is definitely a waste of my time. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cap'n Occ - as far as I'm concerned, if there is an editor who disagrees sufficiently to make a point of it, there is no consensus. there may have been a consensus before, and that might be a good place to start to refine a new consensus, but no one is honor-bound to conform to a previous agreement against their will.

With respect to the data-driven model: there were some contentions over that idea that were based on worries that a data-driven model - actually, a replication of the model used on race and intelligence - would unfairly privilege some perspectives over others (I believe the phrase used was 'cherry-picking data that supported particular POVs', from Wapondaponda) and that trying to solve the problem by defining the structure would be ineffective (from AProck). I think there was a lot of support for the idea, but not unanimous agreement. rather than deciding the issue now as a finality, I might suggest that we start by using a data-centric model, just to get the ball rolling, but leave our options open if it looks like it's leading the article astray. I'm open to other suggestions, of course - what do you all think? --Ludwigs2 08:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

“rather than deciding the issue now as a finality, I might suggest that we start by using a data-centric model, just to get the ball rolling, but leave our options open if it looks like it's leading the article astray.”

What you’re suggesting sounds fine to me. What I really want to avoid is having to re-start the entire discussion about whether to use a data-centric structure, since we spent at least two weeks discussing this question the previous time we discussed it, and I doubt we’d be able to resolve anything by discussing it again that we didn’t resolve last time.

There’s also another reason I’m reluctant to try and re-resolve this issue, which is that a lot of the users who were involved in the mediation when we discussed this previously aren’t active here currently. I’m thinking of Varoon Arya, DJ and David.Kane in particular. These three users were all advocates of using a data-centric structure, so if we restart the debate over whether to use a this structure at a time when none of these users are active here, it’s going to create the appearance that there are fewer users involved in the mediation who approve of this than there actually are.

“if there is an editor who disagrees sufficiently to make a point of it, there is no consensus.”

It isn’t imperative that we resolve this right away, but I think we’ll need to discuss this at some point before the mediation is finished—do you think it’s necessary for us to have 100% agreement among all the users here about something before we can consider it resolved, and if so, do you think that’s an attainable goal? The usual definition of consensus at Wikipedia is more modest than this. And as for attainability, how likely do you think it is that we’ll be able to come up with a final version of the article that Alun and TechnoFaye will both approve of? Even if everyone else can come to an agreement about what the eventual article should be, TechnoFaye seems adamant that the hereditarian hypothesis be presented as the only valid explanation for the IQ difference, and Alun seems adamant that we do the same for environmental explanations. Is the agreement of 100% of the users here necessary even when there are users who take extreme positions like this, and refuse to compromise? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone willing to make major changes can create a temporary draft in a subfolder for the talk page of R/I and can use the Template:Workpage. Participants can review and if there is a consensus the changes can be implemented. If rejected the draft should be deleted. If a draft is of better quality than previous versions, then it doesn't matter whether it is datacentric or not. When we signed on to this mediation, the agreement was that during the process, no edits, except if there is a consensus, would be made to the article. I believe that most of us have refrained from editing the article during this mediation, but nonetheless the article may have evolved somewhat during the mediation. This mediation should include the "do nothing option", which in this case refers to the stable version that existed prior to the dispute. Apart from the "hereditarian arguments", the only other major problem with the pre-dispute version was that the article was too long. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Occam: My approach to consensus doesn't use that 'black and white' perspective. The point here is not to get everyone to agree (which is impossible) but merely to reduce disagreements to an acceptable level for all participants. consensus doesn't mean "everyone says it's right"; consensus means that everyone is willing to except it as neutral (with appropriate reservations).

@ Waponda: I'd sugest that we edit directly into mainspace. there hasn't been a lot of activity on the article during the mediation, so I don't think that's too much of a worry, and editing in a subpage seems like a lack of commitment to the process. we should commit ourselves to making the change now, rather than putting off the actual implementation of the changes to some unspecified future point. --Ludwigs2 15:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Sorry I've been absent lately, but recent developments in RL are eating up all of my spare time - and then some. Even if we had an agreement on the 'one editor' proposal and folks could handle me doing it, I simply don't have the time the job requires, and won't for several months.

At this point - and taking the climate of this mediation into consideration - my earnest suggestion to Ludwigs is to begin by mercilessly stubbing the article down to the section currently labeled "Overview". That is the only section which has near-universal editorial consensus behind it, which is entirely on-topic and which is as non-POV as we can hope to get right now.

Of course, such a stub would need to be expanded. But every new piece of information added to the article would need to be written up as a proposal, discussed and tweaked/voted on as a group before being added. And, I think the only way to do this is for Ludwigs to act as the buffer between the editors and the article every step of the way. It's ridiculous, but it seems the situation requires it. --Aryaman (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WhenI came out or "data driven," I meant that the difference in aveage IQ scores corelated with race, and race in this case was self-identified, open the article and we see different research onthe topic following from this. Remember I also hel that the AAPA statement be relied on as the standard for mainstream, minority, fringe views on biological "race," the APA statment be relied on for psychological views on race and intelligence. I think if DJ is charged with an initial drafting I would agree if there was a comittee of Muntuwandi, A.prock, and Varoon Arya guiding the process and making additional edits. All guided by the signposts Ludwigs2 derived from our discussions here. That would produce a draft I think I could trust. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that we know Varoon Arya doesn’t have enough time to revise the article himself, do we know for sure that DJ still doesn’t? It was around two weeks ago that he told us he wouldn’t have time for this himself, and it’s possible that circumstances have changed for him since then.

If DJ still doesn’t have time for it either, the one other editor involved in the mediation whom I’d be willing to accept in this role is David.Kane. There isn’t anyone else who I trust to be both knowledgeable and neutral enough to do a good job revising it. (And I know a lot of you don’t trust me about this, so I don’t think I’m a good choice either.)

If Varoon Arya, DJ and David.Kane are all unable to do this, I’m not sure what the best course of action would be in that case. One possibility is to see if we can find someone who’s not currently involved in the mediation who could help us with this. Another would be to just wait, and leave this mediation case open until either DJ, VA or David.Kane eventually has enough time to revise the article. As reluctant as I am to delay things unnecessarily, at least this way we could be confident that the article will be revised eventually. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1) I am still actively reading the discussion. I just haven't felt the need to chime in recently. 2) I am not a fan of the data-centric approach. 3) That said, I am a fan of listening to the mediator and starting the process of working on the article. 4) I have a bunch of time now to devote to the project. 5) I agree that DJ would be the best lead author. 6) I agree with Slrubenstein that input from Muntuwandi, A.prock, and Varoon would be critical to our success. David.Kane (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like most people here are agreed that DJ would be the best lead author. Can anyone contact him to find out whether he’s still too busy to be able to do this, and if so, how long it’s likely to be before he has enough time for it? If it’ll only be a week or two, it might be worth waiting that amount of time so he can do it.

I’ve also found someone else (outside of the mediation) who might be able to help us, if we end up needing that. He’s a cognitive psychologist who specializes in intelligence testing, and actively publishes research in this field, which makes him more of an authority on this topic than (I think) anyone else involved in the mediation. The article is currently tagged as needing the attention of an expert on this subject; he would certainly fit the bill. I haven’t asked him yet whether he’d like to help us with the article, but I can if other people here think that would be helpful. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not ask him. I agree there's no rush here. I think we've made progress recently, with 'fringe' resolved and I feel (hope) sociological/biological/genetic race is resolved. So it will be fine to wait until an agreeable primary editor is available. mikemikev (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that DJ would be, by far, the best choice. I also think that Occam's friend would be excellent. David.Kane (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

David Kane, can you say a bit more about why you do not like a dada-centric approach and what you see as the alternative? I explained or tried to explain more clearly what I meant by "data driven" (I am not sure if others share my definition) - is that what you reject, or some other formulation? As to the "committee," I am not sure if David Kane is rejecting Muntuwandi. If so, I would propose Wobble instead. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything insightful to say about data-centric versus non-data-centric. I just didn't want to pretend to be a fan. Also, I don't mean to be rejecting Muntuwandi (or anyone else). David.Kane (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, let me offer an idea - since David Kane has the time and may have the interest in doing the revision, and since he opposes the data-centric model, he may (oddly) be the best person to try to revise the article from a data-centric perspective. a lot of times people can give much better, fairer, and more neutral presentations of things they disagree with than they can of things that are nearer and dearer to their hearts. --Ludwigs2 12:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev, I asked DJ about this on his userpage yesterday evening, but he hasn’t responded yet. That isn’t a good sign: if he’s not even active enough here to be able to respond to questions on his userpage within a day, we probably shouldn’t get our hopes up about him having enough time to write the article.

But I guess we can still wait to see if he’ll be able to help us at some point in the near future. In the meantime, I’ll ask the psychologist I mentioned about this. It’s kind of difficult to get in contact with him, though, so that might take a little while also. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, writing the article would be an administrative process as it would simply involve adding the material that has been agreed upon in this mediation. If writing was simply administrative, then who gets to write the article shouldn't be a critical decision, it would simply be someone who is part of the mediation, is willing and has the time. I am concerned that some of us maybe tired of this process and simply want to get it over and done with. However I haven't seen any progress on the core problem, which is how much of the hereditarian hypothesis would be included in the article.

If at any time, someone comes up with a version of an article that everyone is satisfied with, then this mediation would gladly come to an end. I therefore am not against any efforts to start writing. But this process doesn't have to be rushed (see the essay WP:DEADLINE). As Slrubenstein had stated earlier, many editors have been interested in this article for years, and probably will be interested for years to come. There will be fluctuations in activity levels of this mediation because editors have to deal with RL, but in the long run, there will always be individuals willing to contribute. It is more important to come up with an article that is stable, than to come up with an article tomorrow or next week.

AFAIK, we haven't made much progress on the core issues, and so I still suggest a draft page to address the specifics. The advantage of a draft is that there is no pressure and we can experiment different options without "edit warring". Wapondaponda (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though we haven’t come up with a specific answer to the question of how much space to give the hereditarian hypothesis, I think one of the benefits of using a “data-centric” structure is that this structure would provide a way around that question. The raw data does not specifically support one hypothesis or another—if it did, there would not be any debate over the cause of the IQ difference, would there? Evidence that’s commonly cited in favor of environmental factors, such as the Eyferth study and the Flynn effect, still needs to be explained by the hereditarian hypothesis, and the same holds true for environmental explanations and evidence that’s most commonly cited in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis. Just to give an example of what I’m talking about, Arthur Jensen devotes around 15 pages to discussing the Flynn effect in The g Factor, while Richard Nisbett devotes around the same amount of space in Intelligence and How to Get It to discussing regression among siblings. The data in this field is always the same, regardless of who’s writing about it, so if the data is what our article is describing, we won’t have to worry about how much space we’re giving to each viewpoint.

I agree that ideally, the final version of the article could be written by anyone involved in this mediation, but the main issue is that some editors are more likely than others to introduce their personal bias into the article while writing it. Going with two obvious examples, I wouldn’t want the article to be revised by TechnoFaye or Alun, because TechnoFaye is adamant that we describe the hereditarian hypothesis as the only valid explanation of the IQ difference, while Alun is the same way about environmental explanations. Our discussion about who should write the article is mostly about who will be best able to do so neutrally. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I had earlier suggested Alun be involved in the rewrite. I did so because of his comprehensive knowledge of molecular genetics. But if people object, I would ask that Muntuwandi be involved in the rewrite. He has demonstrated a solid knowledge of debates and a willingness to dialogue with others. All of us have some sort of bias. Arya is biased, although I also respect his knowledge. If Arya is involved in the rewrite I think Muntuwandi should as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong opinion about who’ll be involved in the rewrite, in terms of providing advice and feedback to the person making the revisions. What I’m talking about here is just about who’s going to be making the revisions themselves. If VA and DJ both aren’t able to do this anytime soon, I think the person who should be making the revisions is David.Kane, possibly along with the psychologist I mentioned earlier. (If I can get him to help us, that is—getting in contact with him again is proving more difficult than I’d anticipated.) --Captain Occam (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think one editor is the only workable plan. Of course they would have to be as neutral as possible. IMHO: TechnoFaye and I are too hereditarian (although I accept the environmental possibility, not sure if Faye does); Alun, Wapondaponda, Aprock and Slrubenstein are too environmentalist; Occam, Aryaman, David Kane, Ludwig and DJ are roughly neutral. I would be happy with any of the neutral editors. Is Ludwig compromised as an option? mikemikev (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know that I have ever asserted any claim about either the hereditarian or environmentalist positions, specifically. I think Aryaman and Muntuwandi seem equally neutral. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) [1]mikemikev (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly think environmental explanations hold more weight, I only base that view on the science, not my own personal opinions. The unfortunate reality is that directly testing for genetic factors relating to intelligence has been impossible until recently, and now that it is possible it has generally been inconclusive. This contrasts with environmental effects for which there is much direct evidence with respect to intelligence. That said, I have neither the time, nor the skills to do major editing. A.Prock 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I’ve got some good news here. I got in contact again with the psychologist I mentioned earlier, and I’m pretty sure he’ll be willing to help us. He’s the primary author of this paper about race differences in reaction time. So if someone with the name “Bryan Pesta” or some variant of it shows up here within the next few days, that’s who it is.

Based on my discussions with him, his opinion about this topic seems to be that the cause of the IQ difference can’t be identified at this point, but that no simple environmental explanation is adequate. In addition to his level of knowledge, I think someone with this type of opinion is exactly who we need in order to edit the article neutrally. He doesn’t have a lot of experience with the style-related aspects of how to write Wikipedia articles, but I think one of us should be able to give him the guidance he needs with that, or possibly let him give us instructions about content while one of us does the actual editing.

David.Kane, you were my suggestion for who should be the one revising the article if DJ and Varoon Arya aren’t able to do it. What would you think of working together with Bryan Pesta on this, either by giving him instructions on the proper style for writing articles here, or by editing the article yourself while following his instructions about content? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to help in whatever way the moderator would find useful. To participate meaningfully, Pesta will have to learn at least a few Wikipedia editing tricks. David.Kane (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Captain, it is hard for me to understand how in good faith you can say "no simple environmental explanation is adequate." Of course no simple environmental explanation is adequate. That is because no simple explanation is adequate. One could say the same about genetics - no simple genetic explanation is adequate. So I am very puzzled as to why your psychologist friend does not believe that "no simple genetic explanation is adequate." Does he believe that a simple genetic explanation is adequate? Why did he not simply say, "no simple explanation is adequate?" Slrubenstein | Talk 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What Occam has described is basically what the APA report claims, so I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Pesta holds a similar view. I welcome his participation here, particularly if it helps to make clear that there is a crucial difference between the 100% environmental thesis and research which identifies the potential effect of particular environmental factors. Confusing the two makes it seem as though the environmental-only thesis has more support than it actually does, when the real academic consensus is that we simply don't know. --Aryaman (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, I too would very much welcome a professional's draft. I very much doubt that Dr. Pesta is coming from some radical position, but if he is usual wikipedia policies will still apply. A.Prock 17:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Any individual who is knowledgeable about the controversy is welcome to participate in this mediation. Specialists have made significant contributions to wikipedia, especially when it comes to creating or editing articles whose subject matter is highly complex or technical. However no special treatment should be awarded to any editor simply based on their qualifications in RL. Wikipedia policies and guidelines should take precedence at all times, and this means that the opinions of a specialist or expert are relevant only if they have been published in reliable sources. We know that the status of being an "expert" has been abused before when some editors have used their "expertise" to carry weight in content disputes (see Essjay controversy)

In the field of psychology, the RI controversy is currently at a stalemate, since in its traditional form, the field of psychology, is mainly associated with analyzing psychometric test scores. Major breakthroughs in the study of intelligence are likely to arise from interdisciplinary efforts that will include the biological sciences, such as neuroscience, molecular biology and genetics. Arthur Jensen named his book "The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability" but maybe he should have named it "The G Factor: The Statistics of Mental Ability", simply because what is known about intelligence is mostly statistical, the actual biological or biochemical processes by which the human brain produces intelligence are still unknown or poorly understood. Though IQ is thought to be stable and predictive of social outcomes, one criticism from psychologists is that IQ has yet to be associated with any biological process, and that unlike measures of height and weight, one IQ point has no biological meaning. In short, I wouldn't expect a lot of new information, especially information that isn't already in the article, to come from the field of "traditional psychology". The current article is already heavily referenced, with over 160 footnotes. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

After reading other users’ comments, and thinking about this some more, I’ve got a better idea of what I think makes most sense here. This is what I suggest:

David, I think you should go ahead and start editing the article. (In the mainspace, since that’s what Ludwig suggested.) We already have a fairly good idea of what eventual structure we’ll want the article to have, as we worked out in the “eventual page structure” discussion below. (As you can see from that discussion, Varoon Arya and mikemikev also had some suggestions about this structure, which you might want to consider.) As Muntuwandi pointed out, since we’ve already agreed on the overall structure the article should have, the person who makes these revisions doesn’t have to be an expert, as long as they’re familiar with the source material and are able to edit the article neutrally.

Bryan Pesta has made it clear in his discussions with me that there are a lot of things about the current article that he thinks ought to be changed, but I suspect that most of them are things that we’ve already decided should be changed during this mediation. For this reason, I think it’ll be most efficient if we go ahead and change the things that we’ve already decided to change, and then find out whether he has anything additional to suggest afterwards; rather than waiting for him to make all of his suggestions about the current article, which are likely to overlap considerably with what we’ve already decided to change about it. After David has made his initial round of revisions, a lot of users will probably have suggestions for him about additional things that they think should be changed, and that’s the point at which I think Bryan’s input will be most helpful to us.

I consider this proposal a compromise, which takes Muntuwandi’s concerns into consideration, while also not ignoring the fact that the article is tagged as needing the attention of an expert. Does this plan sound like a good idea? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there hasn't been any mediation resolution on the eventual structure. Personally, I'm more concerned about content than I am about structure, but I just wanted to make sure that it's clear that that aspect of the article hasn't made it through mediation yet. A.Prock 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think you should be so particular about whether Ludwig has officially closed a discussion and stated its conclusion. In the case of the structure discussion, he might as well have done so, since it’s pretty clear by this point that nobody else has anything to say in it. Although there were some users who had suggestions about the structure, particularly mikemikev, all of them are minor enough that I don’t think we need to work them out before we begin editing.

Apparently Ludwig doesn’t think so either, since according to him we’re ready to begin editing. That means the structure is as resolved as it needs to be in order for us to do that. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, I was just clarifying the actual facts. And to clarify once more, resolved enough is not the same thing as fully resolved. There may well be issues about the structure that come up once we start editing. A.Prock 16:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

straw poll on current single-editor idea

ok, so let me see if I understand the current idea: David.Kane will be the one revising the article, with input from Brian Pesta as a technical adviser? It is assumed that (a) David will do his best to write from NPOV, and (b) that he will pay attention to comments and considerations that other mediation-bound editors have made here and will make on the article talk page. I'll help Brian out with the wikipedia fine points as needed, and I'll moderate the talk page discussion. I also think we should do this first revision quickly - david, do you think you can dedicate a couple of days to just buckle down and edit? The longer we draws out the editing process, the more chance there is that outside editors will show up and start making other changes, and the more chance there is that we'll get bogged down in nit-picky details. Think of this first draft as shaping the forest- we can get to pruning the trees after it's done. {{tick}} or {{cross}} your support/problems. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose this, but I also can't support it. I don't think the single-editor should be bogged down by having to listen to every minor nitpick that every mediation member might have. As I've said before, we should name a small set of primary feedback editors to keep the single writer more on track. A.Prock 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

so you're ok with david, but worried about the unconstrained feedback thing? or am I misunderstanding you? --Ludwigs2 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Something more akin to the later. But there is also a balance issue in terms of those actively involved in the initial draft. Right now, the primary drafters you listed are David, yourself, and the fellow that Occam found. Unless there is direct input from someone on the other side of mediation, it's hard to see how the draft is going to be successful. A.Prock 19:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not expecting the draft to be perfect; I'm just expecting it to be a starting point for further revisions. that being said, what would you suggest as a better approach? --Ludwigs2 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a single writer working conjunction with two or three interested editors is the way to go. This allows balance in terms of points of view, as well as less wrangling over minutiae. A.Prock 20:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

“Unless there is direct input from someone on the other side of mediation, it's hard to see how the draft is going to be successful.”

I don’t think of Bryan Pesta as being on either “side” in the debate over this topic, and I don’t know what you think I’ve said to imply that he is. He has basically the same opinion about it that the APA does: that the cause of the IQ difference has not been identified, because no currently existing explanation for it (either genetic or environmental) is adequate.

Something else I should mention here is that although Bryan has agreed to help us with this article, I’m not sure how much time he’ll have to devote to it, or how long it’ll be before he can start participating actively here. I suspect he’ll have more time for it than DJ and Varoon Arya currently do, but he also has a family, courses to teach (he’s a college professor) and research papers about this topic to write. One of the factors that influenced my suggestion was that I’d like it to be possible for us to continue making progress with this article even before he starts helping us, which would be a lot more difficult if we decide we need his input before we can make any revisions to the article.

By the way, Ludwig: you might want to contact David.Kane and tell him know what we’re discussing here, since he probably ought to offer his input about it, and we’ll obviously also need his involvement when it’s time to begin editing. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I can devote two full days to this sometime in the next week. Tuesday and Wednesday, perhaps? After next week, I am away for a week. Once I get the go-ahead from Ludwig, I will dive in. My one request is that we reach some sort of consensus that, unless the final product is completely unacceptable, that this new version of the article will be the default one going forward. It would, obviously, be quite annoying (to me) to devote two days of my life to something and then have a single editor say, "I don't accept this, so we must revert back to the version of March 1, 2010." Needless to say, once I am done, any editor may change any aspect of the article as he sees fit. I would just like to reach consensus ahead of time that this new version will be the default from which future edits/discussions commence. David.Kane (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want that sort of reassurance, I suggest working with the current outline. The outline described in "eventual page structure" is highly skewed towards the hereditarian hypothesis. A.Prock 15:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean we haven't even reached consensus on the outline? In that case, there is no point in starting to write. My suggestion: We all work with the moderator to reach consensus on the outline. A.Prock: What specific changes would you like to see? (Recommend that we start a new section on that topic.) David.Kane (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with A.Prock. I have no objection to David Kane working on putting it all together but I agree with comments above that this should be in consultation with a few other well-informed and inolved editors. David, if you do this in consulation with A.Prock, Wobble, and Aryaman, I will accept what you come up with. Someone took issue with my nominating Wobble, Muntuwadi would be acceptable to me. My point is really that anything that David, A.Proch, Aryaman and Muntuwandi agree to, I will accept, no bitching. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My position is symmetrical. If A.Prock, Wobble, DJ, Aryman or anyone else in involved in this mediation would like to work with that outline as the primary editor, then excellent! They have my full support. I promise that I will take whatever they produce as the default for all future edits. If I am the primary editor, then I would like the same assurance from others (or at least the mediator.) If folks are unwilling to do so, then one would have to be, uh quite generous to spend two days of one's life on a project that might never be used. By the way, do we have differing definitions of "in consultation with?" Mine (and it applies whether or not I am the primary editor) is that you read and consider, in good faith, the comments made by other authors. But you are not required to make every change they demand. David.Kane (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are still a few outstanding issues that need to be resolved before writing commences. I agree with A.Prock, that the proposed structure is biased towards the hereditarian position. There are just a few comments in that section, so it seems that the proposed structure hasn't been thoroughly debated yet. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's try this then:

1. David.Kane will take the lead on doing the primary revisions, over a two day period next week
2. He will do this in consultation with A.Prock, Wobble, Aryaman, and (possibly?) Brian Pesta.
3. All other editors should step back, and if they need to comment should do so through me through me by leaving a message on my talk page or in this mediation page
4. We should take the time between now and next tuesday to revise the outline, keeping in mind that (a) it doesn't need to be perfect, and (b) we will have the opportunity for further tweaking after the primary draft is done

does that sound workable? --Ludwigs2 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although I’d like to be one of the editors who advises David.Kane about this also.

It’s Tuesday now, and we need to remember that David.Kane said that he would only be available for a limited time this week, and that after that he would be away. So if we don’t get started with revising the article, we’re going to miss our opportunity for him to do that. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:53, 9 March 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)

Volume 48, Issue 2 of PAID included 5 articles in a section titled "National IQs and evolutionary theories of intelligence: a discussion". Here are the articles:

• Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsboom, Conor V. Dolan, Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 91-96, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.028.
• J. Philippe Rushton, Brain size as an explanation of national differences in IQ, longevity, and other life-history variables, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 97-99, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.029.
• Richard Lynn, Consistency of race differences in intelligence over millennia: A comment on Wicherts, Borsboom and Dolan, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 100-101, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.007.
• Donald I. Templer, Can't see the forest because of the trees, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 102-103, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.011.
• Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsboom, Conor V. Dolan, Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 104-106, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.020.

This is perhaps the most controversial of the most controversial. I would have even suggested dropping that section from the outline, but this blast of papers makes that difficult to justify. --DJ (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now why I was confused: in November of last year, I wasn’t aware that papers in the January 2010 issue were accessible anywhere yet. So I was looking for the papers about this in the January 2009 issue, and couldn’t figure out what it was that you were referring to there.

Incidentally, I agree with you about these papers needing to be covered in the article. Especially now that we’re going with a data-centric approach, we can’t exclude material that’s been published in a reliable source (which PAID definitely is) just because of the fact that it’s controversial. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Move "Factors potentially affecting group IQ" immediately after "Data and interpretations".
  • do you mean the section and all of its subsections as a unit? just asking in the spirit of clarification..--Ludwigs2 18:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. mikemikev (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Include "Test score differences" as the first subsection in "Data and interpretations".
• Change "Black and biracial children raised by white parents" to "Trans-racial adoption studies".

mikemikev (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I’d prefer to defer to Varoon Arya when it comes to making changes like this to the outline. Now that DJ has let us know that he won’t have the time to write the new version of the article, it looks like the new version is most likely going to be written by VA, since everyone who’s expressed an opinion about who should write it gave him as their top choice other than DJ for this. And since VA will probably be the one writing the article, I think it makes most sense for him to be the one making decisions like this about its structure. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I was just making some suggestions, which I'm sure VA will expect. mikemikev (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the outline, it is currently far skewed toward the hereditarian hypothesis. A.Prock 15:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The outline should follow logically from the subject. This article is (tentatively) titled "Race and intelligence". This is a short-hand way of saying the article is about "the correlation between race and intelligence". Now, given that subject, our article should answer several key questions, namely:

• What are meant by the terms "race" and "intelligence" in this particular context?
• What is the primary ("trigger") correlation between "race" and "intelligence"?
• What studies have been conducted on this correlation?
• What theories have been proposed to explain this correlation?
• What does the scientific community agree has been learned thus far? What remains uncertain?

Before getting into the nuts and bolts of an outline, can we agree that these are the points this article needs to cover? --Aryaman (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It really comes down to the amount of detail that goes into the "what studies" and "what theories" sections. This isn't meant to be a review article, but an encyclopedic article. I don't think the bulk of the article should be spent on summarizing research data, especially contemporary research which is still being done. That said, I certainly think there is a lot of room for highlighting ongoing research efforts (specifically Jenson and Rushton). I'm just a bit wary of the monolithic wall of charts approach, specifically because it tends to create more noise than signal, and lends itself to quote mining. A.Prock 20:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

“I don't think the bulk of the article should be spent on summarizing research data, especially contemporary research which is still being done”

Aprock, the current assumption here is that we’ll be using a data-centric approach. Users on both sides of the debate here have agreed about this, and Ludwig has stated that we shouldn’t try to second-guess this decision until after we’ve at least written the first draft of the revision. And if we’re going to use a data-centric approach, that means these individual lines of data need to be discussed. As I said before, each of these lines of data are also discussed by authors on both sides of the debate about this topic, so for us to discuss them in the article is not specifically supporting one side or the other.

It sounds like what you really have a problem with here is just the idea of using a data-centric approach in general. But according to what Ludwig has said about this, it isn’t the time or the place to try and rethink that decision right now. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Occam wp:AGF please - I don't think that's what A.Prock was saying at all. I tend to agree with him that the amount of detail on any particular point should be in balance with the prominence of that point, so even using the data-centric approach we are going to need to be restrained in our use of the available data. Please keep in mind that we are not arguing the issue ourselves here, just presenting the arguments that appear in the literature in some semblance of balance. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted what Aprock meant, but when I put his comment that I quoted together with his earlier comment about how he thinks this outline is skewed towards the hereditarian hypothesis, I read that as meaning that he thinks the article shouldn’t be covering data such as brain size, reaction time, or regression among siblings. (I’m assuming this data is what he meant by “contemporary research which is still being done”, and that its inclusion is why he thinks the outline is slanted towards the hereditarian viewpoint.) But if we’re going to use a data-centric approach, then describing this data as neutrally as possible is exactly what we need to do, since these lines of data are fairly prominent in the literature on both sides in this debate.

Aprock, if what you meant is something other than this, can you please explain in what way you think the outline is slanted in favor of the hereditarian view? And within the framework of the data-centric approach and its requirements, can you make any suggestions about what specific things about the outline ought to be changed? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't the particulars of included research, it's the relative weight and the total amount. I wouldn't suggest that any specific study area be excluded, but I would suggest limiting the number of study areas to a manageable number, and making sure that such presentations are do not overweight hereditarian research. A.Prock 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In most cases, research isn’t specifically “hereditarian” or “environmentalist”. If you look at most of the most commonly-cited raw data about this topic, it’s gathered by people who weren’t specifically trying to support one hypothesis or the other; they were just trying to gather more information about the topic in general. It’s usually only after the studies are completed that proponents of either theory write about how they think the results support their viewpoint, and for most data this is done by people on both sides of the debate.

Describing each line of data in proportion to its prominence in the source literature is fine, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my current version of the outline in this regard. (Keep in mind that in the actual article, these sections will not have to all be the same length.) If you have a problem with the current outline, can you please make a specific suggestion about what you think should be changed about it? I think it’s fine the way it is, and I also don’t really understand what sort of change would be necessary in order to satisfy you. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand Aprock's earlier comment. If data is the "noise" in this scenario, what exactly is the "signal"? --Aryaman (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The scientific conclusions are the signal. A.Prock 01:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

to clarify: it is possible for people to write gobs of material on not-very-significant points, and make reams of research debating minor disagreements. we need to balance the material according to the significance of the subject, and not necessarily according to the mere quantity of material in the literature. --Ludwigs2 01:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, you haven’t answered my question about what specific things you think should be changed about the outline. I guess your comment above answers it indirectly, though: if you think of the data as the “noise” and the conclusions as what’s relevant, then it looks like your issue here is that you think the data should be de-emphasized in favor of the conclusions that have been drawn from it. If this is how you feel, then it really is the data-centric approach that you’re having a problem with here, since the central idea of the data-centric approach is that the article would be focusing on the data rather than the conclusions.

Are there any changes that you (or Muntuwandi) want to suggest for the outline that don’t go against any of the basic premises of the data-centric approach? If there are, then I’m open to them, but this isn’t the appropriate place for us to be discussing your problems with the data-centric approach in general. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with data. In fact, I love data, I spend most of my days generating and analyzing data. But unless you are the one doing the research, data is only useful as an illustration, not as a message. The basic problem with promoting data to the level of primary content is that it discounts the more valuable work of the scientists who developed and interpreted the data. There's also the problem of there being more data than can be presented in an encyclopedic article. Look at any review article, and you'll see that it's length is far too long for wikipedia. At a fundamental level, we are going to have to make decisions about what to include (and exclude) in this article. Those decisions should be made based on our current scientific understanding. I don't have specific suggestions about what to change because it really depends on what gets written and how much time is spent on what. In fact, I'd be happy to see references to all the entries in the outline. But a full blown summary of each of the dozen or so research areas goes well beyond what this article needs to be about. A.Prock 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

While I think I understand your point, I don’t see how any of what you’re saying is specific enough for us to come up with specific revisions to the overview based on it, or even whether revising it based on what you’re saying should be necessary at all. As I said before, not all of these lines of data will need to be covered in-depth. For example, the current article only devotes around five sentences to socioeconomic status as a possible explanation for the IQ difference, since the APA rejects that as an explanation for it. It seems like the only necessary course of action based on what you’re saying is to make sure none of these lines of data are described in more detail than their respective importance. And we don’t need to change the outline for that; that’s something we can discuss with David.Kane when he’s doing the actual editing.

That is, unless you’re arguing that some of these lines of data ought to be left out entirely. If that’s what you’re saying, then I don’t agree with it, and I think it’s also getting into rejecting aspects of the data-centric structure in general. Remember, all of these lines of data were specifically listed in DJ’s original proposal, and as a result they’re what we’ve had in mind the whole time we’ve been discussing the data-centric approach. I also think that all of these lines of data receive enough attention in the academic literature about this topic (from both sides of the debate about it) that if we’re going to use a data-centric approach, NPOV policy will demand that we cover all of them in at least some capacity.

Will you be okay with providing at least a bare minimum of coverage to all of these lines of data, and discussing with David.Kane about how much space should be given to each of them? Consiering the concerns you’ve raised, I think that’s what makes the most sense here. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam writes, "For example, the current article only devotes around five sentences to socioeconomic status as a possible explanation for the IQ difference, since the APA rejects that as an explanation for it." This seems disingenuous. The APA report itself states that it is clear that the average differences between groups are well within the range suggested by environmental factors (page 94). It ultimately rejects SES not because it is rejecting sociological or environmntal explanations as such; it is criticizing current SES measures for failing to "adequately describe the situation of African Americans." (page 94) in other words, typical income- and education-based measures of "SES" fail to measure the social and environmental factors that might explain differences between avereage black and average white scores. The APA report also devotes considerably less attention to the "hereditarian hypothesis." That is because the APA statement concludes that "there is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis" (page 95)[2]. Please do not accuse me of misrepresenting the APA report. The APA report states that a portion of intelligence in any human being is due to genes, and that a portion of difference between two individuals of the same population is due to genetics; this is established pretty solidly. But when it comes to explaining average IQ difference between groups which is the topic at hand, it devotes far more space to environmental and social views, and criticizes SES for being too narrow. The APA tratement of environmental factors is quantitatively different from its treatment of the hereditarian hypothesis, which is given considerably less space. It's treatment is qualitatively different, because when it comes to genetic influence it simply provides the same conclusion one will find to any scientific report, whcih is, new research can always force us to change our views. But when it comes to social and environmental evidence, it actually has several paragraphs on factors that researchers have not yet investigatd, or that are real but hard to measure, but which should be considered in an account of group differences. Captai Occam, if you are saying that we should more or less follow the APA in its treatment of these two approaches, I do not object. Just represent the APA report accrately. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A.Proxk writes, "But unless you are the one doing the research, data is only useful as an illustration, not as a message." I agree fully, and this illustrates why I think it is so important for someone who really understands science, like A.Prock, or Wobble or Muntuwandi, to be involved in drafting the new article (even if as A.Prock wrote, they are not available full time and perhaps must act more as consultants or revising parts of it). I have no problem with opening the article with data, IF we have data that all major scientists of all major views are trying to interpret. In this sense I can see a data-driven version of the article saying, Here is the data, scientists have raised x different questions about it and there are currently y different interpetations. If we can do that, great! But if the major points of view in the scientific community are not working with the same data, it will get pretty complicated. And it is a mistake that we can just start with the data. As any researcher knows, any research generates a great deal of what A.Prock calls "noise" and scientists spend a fair amount of time figuring out how to eliminate noise (sometimes through fundaentally random means). Simply to present raw data here not only deprecates the work of scientists, as A.Prock says, it also invites violations of WP:NOR by inviting all editors to cme up with their own explanations. And as the APA statemtne shows - in is review of different explanations - to explain the difference people have drawn on all sorts of other bodies of evidence, i.e. data. Where would we stop? I support a datacetric approach only to the extent that opening with uncontested data and then explainin what kind os fquestions scientists have raised about this data, what it considers important questions and what not, might be a more effective introuction that the traitional, "here are the different points of view and their evidence" i.e. introducing new evidence as different researchers voice their opinion. That approach may be too confusing to readers. But I repeat, beginning iwth data works, only if it is data that all significant views from no9table sources agree on is important data. We might need a separate article, debates on what constitutes relevant data (I am very serious, this is why I have suported using this as a disambig. page from the start). Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"someone who really understands science, like A.Prock, or Wobble or Muntuwandi, to be involved in drafting the new article" --- I agree that any of these three would be fine primary editors. But, unless, I am mistaken, none has volunteered to do so. Slrubenstein (or anyone else): Any objects to me as primary editor? David.Kane (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to you as primary editor. And I'd be happy to review any initial draft you wrote in detail. A.Prock 15:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being MIA. I'm afraid that will continue for some time. Let me reiterate what I originally meant by a data-centric approach. First, what it is not -- It is in contrast to an explanation-centric approach. The point of a data-centric approach is not to alter the scope of the article or the level of detail given. It is not an invitation to conduct original research or synthesis -- the point is still to explain what the relevant published views are. This isn't a major departure from standard practice and policy. Second, what I meant -- Primarily the idea is that the subheadings of the relevant section of the article should be kinds of data/experiments (e.g. admixture studies, Flynn effect). The results of these studies should be presented in whatever details is appropriate -- less is better I would think. The major interpretations of the data should be given -- attributed as appropriate. All relevant views about how to interpret the data should be given in the same subsection. The state of the science being what it is, there is always going to be at least two notable opinions about how to interpret a study. Third, why this is useful -- The goal is to provide an organizational structure that is more easily made compliant with NPOV. An explanation-centric approach would be worse... if the major opinion in the field is that no one knows what causes IQ differences then there's no reason to try to write an article that is structured around contrasting extreme poles of opinion about what the cause really is. The data-centric approach will make the source of the uncertainty clearer. It should also be most sustainable because there will be less temptation to add one more detail pro or con a particular interpretation if the organization isn't structured around explanations themselves. --DJ (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

page structure - convenience break

This is my suggestion for the basic structure of the article

• Lead-intro
• Overview

• Race-brief discussion
• Intelligence - brief discussion
• Test data - Description of variation in test scores

• Causes-causes of test score differences

• Environmental-discussion and criticism
• Genetic- discussion and criticism.
• Environmental and Genetic
• Unknown

• Ethical issues- ethics and policy issues

These sections are what I believe are the core issues in this controversy. To make the article easier to read, I suggest that like material should be placed together when possible. The current proposal has genetic and environmental arguments sprinkled all over the article. Maybe it would be better if genetic arguments were concentrated in one section and the same for environmental arguments. This would help us to address the how much weight to allocate each hypothesis.

At present, I do not have much time for editing, but I am available to give opinions on any proposed content. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By "each hypothesis", I assume the "environmental hypothesis" and the "hereditarian hypothesis" are being referred to. I think it's been made sufficiently clear during this mediation that identifying environmental factors does not equal support of the environmental hypothesis. This has been one of the rubbing points in the past, and looking over Muntuwandi's outline, it threatens to remain a source of confusion and/or conflict in the future. There are several environmental (social and biological) factors which everyone agrees have the potential to impact the development of intelligence, and these deserve to be listed independently of and prior to either of the two hypotheses, as they are supported by experts on both sides of the ideological divide. The divisive question is whether these known factors - either in isolation or accumulatively - account for all of the difference in test scores between racial groups, with "environmentalists" arguing that they do, and "hereditarians" arguing that they don't. In short, there needs to be a clear distinction made between acknowledged environmental factors and the claim that all of the differences in IQ can be explained by recourse to environmental factors alone. If Muntuwandi could work that into his outline, we might make some progress. --Aryaman (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, your proposal is even further from a data-centric approach than what the article currently has. Do you understand what we’ve been discussing about this for the past two months? The point is that rather than structuring the article based on explanations for the IQ difference, and arguments for and against each position, we’ll be focusing on the various lines of data which could be interpreted either way.

Almost everything in the current proposal falls into that category. Things like regression among siblings, trans-racial adoption studies, the Flynn effect and qualify of education aren’t “arguments”; they’re just data that people taking either position have to work with. The data is frequently used in arguments for one viewpoint or the other, but more often than not these lines of data are incorporated by different people into arguments for both positions.

The point of this discussion is to make suggestions about how to best structure an article that takes a data-centric approach. Arguing against the data-centric approach in general, which is basically what you’re doing by saying that you think the article should be broken down into “genetic arguments” and “environmental arguments”, is not what this discussion is supposed to be about.

As you are aware, I have not supported the data-centric approach. This does not mean that I do not support the inclusion and analysis of data in the article. Because of the nature of the controversy, certain sections or subsections have to be data-centric, and this is already the case with the current article. However, I don't see the need for all the content to be restricted to only raw data and its analysis. If there is other material that is not "data-centric" but is central to the debate, then it ought to be included. I believe Ludwigs suggested that the process begin with a data-centric approach, not because there was a consensus, but rather just to get the process underway. My position is that I am satisfied with the pre-dispute/mediation version and I have reservations about a "data-centric" model because the data may be skewed in one direction. Mainstream science has not put its full weight behind proactively investigating the RI controversy. So the data tends to be one-sided or refutations. Nonetheless one should not dislike something that they haven't seen yet, so I am open to a different version.

The problem with the current proposal, is that there is no section that is explicitly devoted to discussing each of the causal theories. If someone wants to find a summary of the genetic or environmental hypotheses, they should be able to find them without necessarily having to read through all the "noise". I have concerns about some of the subsections in the current proposal, I don't know what data exists for evolutionary models. Most evolutionary models are quite speculative since there were no IQ tests before the 20th century.

As for Varoon's concerns, I agree that there is a spectrum of views ranging from entirely genetic to entirely environmental. Arthur Jensen has supported the view that the B/W gap is 50% genetic and 50% environmental. This would be covered in the genetic and environment hypothesis. However, the "genetic and environmental hypothesis" is usually referred to as the "genetic hypothesis" because it has a genetic component, which is the most controversial element of this controversy. As long as this is clarified, I don't see the suggestion being a source of confusion. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The potential for confusion arises when research identifying particular environmental factors is presented as implicitly supporting the 100% environmental thesis and/or contradicting the hereditarian hypothesis. The same kind of confusion would arise if we were to present research identifying a particular heritable factor as implicitly supporting the 100% genetic thesis. As far as I can tell, both the 100% environmental thesis and the 100% genetic thesis are equally outside the mainstream. At the time of the Snyderman and Rothman study, they were clearly minority views, with the majority either holding to some mixture, with Jensen being the most vocal proponent of ca. 50/50, or remaining safely agnostic. With the amount of criticism directed at Jensen & Co., the majority appears to have tipped in favor of agnosticism.

I can only account for the fact that the editorial body involved in this article is so polarized by appealing to the failure of the article to distinguish between (a) the 100% genetic thesis (very minority and probably "fringe"), (b) the 50%/50% environmental/hereditarian thesis, (c) the 100% environmental thesis, and (d) the agnostic "We don't know" view (probably the dominant view today). In a normal universe, the majority of the editors involved here would hold to the agnostic view while acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the 50%/50% thesis. As it stands, it appears that those naturally inclined towards "We don't know" feel forced to enter the fray in defence of one of the more extreme views, which of course leads to a great deal of unnecessary bickering. --Aryaman (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the real problem is reducing positions to "two" (environmental versus hereditarian), This "point - counter point" structure is congenial to TV news shows and to politics, but does not represent how sciences works. There is no hereditarian hypothesis and there is not environmental hypothesis - I mean really, has anyone come up with a testable hypotheses? These are arguments, not hypotheses, and I know of only a few scholars who promote them. In academe, we look at a host of different causes. Genetics might be one of them. Or it may turnout to be that there will be five or six genetic hypotheses, depending on how many locationson the genome scientists have cause to think influences brain development and function. I reread the APA statement and it is organized by specifying a range of different possible causes. I think this makes sense and is how we should organize this. First, we have data, then a rang of possible explanations for the data. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to echo what Slrubenstein and Aryaman are saying here. Part of the problem is the old saw, "there are two kinds of people, those who think there are two kinds of people and those who don't". Likewise, there are two sides of the R/I debate, those who think there are two sides, and those who don't. A lot of the env. vs. genes stuff is a construct about which the debate occurs, mostly because vociferous agreement isn't a natural form of debate. A.Prock 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and modified the outline to try to capture the discussion that's going on here - I think the two points of view are integrable. everything above the dividing line is the revised outline; material below the line is old points that should be integrated into the above portion (or discarded).

hopefully I didn't screw things up worse with this. comments? --Ludwigs2 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that creating a division between “research pertaining to EM” and “research pertaining to HM” is too explanation-centric. Part of the idea of the data-centric approach is that all research on this topic is equally relevant to both hypotheses, because any valid explanation for the IQ difference will have to account for all of the data. This division is also likely to lead to arguments over how long these sections should be in comparison to one another, when one of the main purposes of using a data-centric approach was to avoid that issue.

I also approved of Varoon Arya’s suggestion to include a section about factors known to influence variation in IQ between individuals. The crux of the debate about race and intelligence is over how similar or different the cause of between-group IQ differences is from the cause of within-group IQ differences, so in order to present this topic in as informative a way as possible, I think it should explain the cause of within-group IQ differences also. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are right Occam. I can't believe what I'm seeing here. Slrubenstein, Muntuwandi and Aprock are arguing that environemental/hereditarian is largely a false dichotomy, and I agree. This is why we are switching to a data-centric model. But then, Muntuwandi proposes a hereditarian/environmental causes model, and Ludwig edits it in. I'm really confused now. Is this hermeneutics? mikemikev (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

as an aside: yes, it is hermeneutics. at least, it got the discussion kick-started. I'll wait a bit and replace it with Aryaman's version below, if that seems to be more accepted. --Ludwigs2 17:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I had some time so I sat down and put together a rough outline of the article as I envision it. If I were writing it, this is what I would start with and see where it goes from there. I've intentionally omitted the lead, as I like to write that last. Here's the outline with a brief description of what each section should cover.

• History

This section should briefly describe the history of intelligence testing and how it has been applied to the issue of race. This should not attempt to be a history of the debate: that will be covered below.

• Group differences in intelligence

The introduction to this section should discuss those factors which are generally recognized as affecting the development of intelligence in individuals and explain the concept of heritability. The general idea here is to set up the key points in the discussion of between-group comparisons. The question of suitability should also be treated here, along with an appropriate rebuttal.

• Data gathering methods

This sub-section should discuss the kinds of tests used to measure intelligence as well as the criteria used to determine race. Any general, non-controversial shortcomings these methods have should be mentioned here.

• Intelligence test score results

This sub-section should present the results of intelligence testing on racial groups. Intended here is preliminary, "uncontrolled" testing, i.e. not the kind that takes place in a controlled study such as the MTAS. In its final paragraph, this sub-section should also describe the so-called "Flynn effect", though discussion of potential causation should be omitted until the next sub-section.

• Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups

This sub-section should discuss those factors which may influence the development of intelligence in groups. Each factor, such as:

• Socio-economic status
• Quality of education
• Nutrition
• Molecular genetics
• etc.

should be listed under its own heading, with the main studies on that factor briefly discussed along with any pertinent criticism of those studies. Notice there is no grouping into "environmental" or "hereditarian" research here - just research on factors potentially affecting the development of intelligence in groups.

• Hypotheses

The introduction to this section should present the history of the discussion beginning with Jensen's paper in the late 60's and extend through the debates of the 90's. The key papers which emerged during this period should be briefly summarized. The purpose here is to orient the reader in the current state of the debate and to make clear that there are at least main 4 positions taken by experts.

• Environmentalism

This sub-section should make a coherent presentation of the environmentalist argument, i.e. that all of the difference in test scores between groups can be accounted for by appealing to environmental factors alone. The key supporters, such as Nisbett and Ceci, and their arguments should be presented, and their work should be criticised where appropriate.

• Hereditarianism

This sub-section should make a coherent presentation of the hereditarian argument, i.e. that the difference in test scores between groups is to be accounted for by a mixture of environmental and genetic factors. The key supporters, such as Jensen and Rushton, and their arguments should be presented, and their work should be criticised where appropriate.

(The 100% genetic hypothesis is pretty fringe, and I don't know of any experts currently holding this position, thus it does not have its own section. If literature can be found on it, however, it should certainly be included.)

• Official statements

This section should present the position taken by bodies of experts in official statements such as that of the APA and the AAA. To be fair, the paper Mainstream Science on Intelligence should also be discussed despite its not being an "official" statement, as it was signed by a rather large body of qualified experts and does not differ substantially from the APA report.

• Policy implications

The section should discuss the socio-political ramifications of research into race and intelligence.

--Aryaman (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, VA. I think this is better than any other proposal anyone has come up with thus far, mine included. I’ve got some question about it, though.

First of all, which of these sections would be the place for studies about specific elements of the IQ difference, such as transracial adoption, regression among siblings, and structural equation modeling? They’re definitely not “Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups”, but we don’t seem to have a section that fits data like this more specifically. I’d also like to know where in this structure we’d be including the history of the debate, and the “significance of group IQ differences” data, since your outline isn’t clear about where either of those items would go either.

Once these points have been clarified, I’d like it if this could be the outline that David.Kane uses as a basis for revising the article. You’re also welcome to try revising it yourself, if you end up having enough time for that. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we could discuss individual studies under the factors they attempt to isolate and evaluate. The MTAS, for example, attempted to isolate rearing conditions through transracial adoption. Thus, I would discuss the MTAS under "Rearing conditions" as a variable potentially affecting intelligence in groups. (I wouldn't put it under "Socio-economic status", as the adoptive parents were all controlled in this regard.) Of course, if the MTAS proved anything, it proved that rearing conditions within the family did not account for the racial differences in IQ in the way the environmental hypothesis assumed they would.

Other studies would need to be evaluated in the same fashion. In other words, I wouldn't group methodically similar studies (e.g. twin studies) together unless they are also attempting to identify the same factor(s).

I do think we should have something covering the methods used in these studies (adoption, twin studies, regression, correction, modelling, etc.), and I would put that in the first paragraphs of the "Variables" section. But, I get the feeling that you may be talking about something else entirely here. If so, please get specific about the data/studies you have in mind and I'm sure we'll find a solution.

The "history of the debate" would serve well as an introduction to the section labelled "Hypotheses", starting with Jensen's paper and following through the Bell Curve debates of the 90's. This would help show how the Environmental and Hereditarian "positions" formed.

As for the "Significance of group IQ differences", it's unclear to me what exactly this should entail. If it has to do with an evaluation of the statistical significance, then we could discuss it under "Intelligence test score results", after the scores but before the "Flynn effect". If it has to do with the social significance of the differences, then it could be put prior to the "Policy implications" section. If it has to do with something else entirely, then perhaps we're looking at a new sub-section. --Aryaman (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your idea of listing studies according to what factors they attempted to isolate sounds reasonable, but it would be helpful if you could be a little more specific how some of them should be categorized. I’m still not able to think of what factors we should list as being isolated in regression studies and structural equation models, although maybe that’s just because I’m pretty tired right now. In any case, though, it would make it easier for the rest of us if you could expand your outline a little to show how some of these things would fit into it.

When I’m talking about when I refer to the “Significance of group IQ differences” data is this. It was one of the things DJ added when he revamped the article while it existed as “Between-group differences in IQ”, and there was also a similar section in the December 2006 version of the article. I think if we’re going to use a data-centric structure, the information discussed in this section definitely needs to be included, because it’s a pretty prominent aspect of the research about this topic, and there’s very little dispute about it from either the environmental or hereditarian perspective. It’s up to you where in the outline this ought to go. If this fits the definition of what you referred to as “social significance”, your suggestion of putting it right above the “policy implications” section sounds fine.

By the way, can you please let us know if you eventually do have the time to revise the article yourself? I think there are more editors here who approve of you taking on this role than there are who approve of David.Kane doing it, and (as far as I know) you don’t have a time limit of the end of this week the way he does. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Above, Aryaman writes, "As far as I can tell, both the 100% environmental thesis and the 100% genetic thesis are equally outside the mainstream." I'd like to know what the basis is for that. As far as I know there is no evidence that genes explain the difference in group averages, and given just how many categorically different things are included under the catch-all, "environment" I do not see what makes the argument that all the causes are evironmental, "extreme."

I am still uncomfortable with a section on the hereditarian hypothesis and the genetic hpothesis as opposing one another. May I note that I am glad to see Mikemikev and myself agreeing for once. I am not sure that "environment" and "genetic" are comparable. Genes are sequences of nucleotides, that is very clear. What does "environment" mean? Whether you belong to a minority group? Whether you ate paint as a kid? Something about the fetal environment? Whether you get along with your dad? We should move away from binary oppositions.

Besides, I am not sure what the so-called "genetic hypothesis" is, or "the environmental hypothesis" for that matter. A hypothesis is a prediction concerning something measurable in the world that can be falsifid. What exactly is the hypothesis? Can it be tested? is it falsifiable? We have been using terms that have a certain meaning in science to characterize opinion as far as I can tell and I think this is one reason we have had such intractable problems with the article. If Jensen calls his position a hypothesis we had better include his definition of "hypothesis." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, Varoon, but I do have some disagreements with your outline. I think everyone agrees, that except for space or limitations on article size, that a section on the history of the controversy can be included in the article. The section title "Group differences in intelligence" is POV. There are individuals who believe that groups don't really exist, or that it isn't yet possible to universally define intelligence, or that evidence for group differences is inconclusive, or that group differences don't exist. I had suggested earlier a section on "test score data", which I believe is neutral, in fact more "data-centric". Such a section can describe how test scores vary both within and between groups. This section could include information such as

• A full range of IQ scores, from very low to high, is typically found in any large population or sample.
• Populations differ in their mean IQ but their IQ ranges overlap significantly.
• Most variation in IQ scores is found within populations rather than between populations
• While several groups score differences can be constructed, and a few have been studied, the most contentious group score difference is the B/W gap, which translates to 1 standard deviation.
• Most, if not all the data is from the US
• Race variable is based on SIRE.

"Data gathering methods" may be similar to a "methodology". Seeing that wikipedia readers typically want a summary, I think a full sub-section may not be required. I would therefore suggest compressing "group differences in intelligence" and "Data gathering methods" into test score data. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

let me concur with slr a bit - I think the '100%/100% are equally outside' thing is a bit overstated (though I agree that neither of them is major player in the debate at this point. and I am also confused by the terminology a bit. does heritability mean strictly genetic or does it include social heritability (e.g. early-childhood training)? does environmental exclude genetics? it would be nice to clarify this terminology, and might help the discussion advance. --Ludwigs2 19:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear when I said environmental/hereditarian was a false dichotomy. The research is. Hereditarians start with data and reason to conclusions. Environmentalists start with conclusions and cherry pick data. The conclusions, ~50% genetic/~0% genetic are of course a real dichotomy, and can have sections in the article. It will be solved by genome studies and course they are hypotheses. VA your plan looks good. To maybe address some of CO's concerns, I think regression is isolating the factor - 'genes'. mikemikev (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think painting researchers with overly broad brushes which are clearly false really helps move the discussion forward. At some level, I think we generally have to assume good faith in them as well, unless there is strong evidence to conclude otherwise. Ludwig2 does raise good points about how easy it can be to confuse heritable and genetics. And of course, at the fundamental level, it's environment that shapes genetics, so drawing a precise line between the two can be sometimes difficult. A.Prock 08:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you're confused about heritable/genetics, and don't understand gene/environment interaction theory? Should you really be involved here? This is what we should be explaining to people. Why do you insist on giving these condescending little lectures on basic scientific principles. VA has produced a very well crafted and neutral proposal. Muntuwandi's proposal is absurd. Instead of nitpicking, let's get it done. mikemikev (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Mike, do not attack another editor. Personal attacks can get you blocked. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC) @mike, no I'm not confused at all. I was pointing out that others can be confused by it. I certainly agree that making it clear in the article is important. A.Prock 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Occam: The section you linked to is a good one, and I would put it in the same place as it appears there, i.e. prior to the Policy Implications. As for time: I have some, but I don't want to waste it on bickering with people here. ;)

Slrubenstein: My starting point for that assumption is the Snyderman & Rothman study, in which both the 100% genetic and the 100% environmental positions were clearly minority views. Add to that the conclusions of the Mainstream article and the APA report, and I think it's pretty clear that neither of those views are dominant. As I've said several times, I think the mainstream view is agnosticism.

Regarding your being "uncomfortable": Hereditarianism (ca. 50% environment and 50% genes) and the genetic hypothesis (100% genes) are simply not the same thing. Environmentalism is the belief that all of the differences in IQ between races can be explained by recourse to differences in environmental factors alone. Most if not all experts would agree without hesitation that environmental factors play a large role here. But how many are willing to stick their necks out and say categorically that genes play no role at all? Knowing what we do about the development of intelligence in individuals, i.e. that both the environment and genes are important, assuming that this is not the case simply because we're comparing people of different races runs contrary to common sense and would require some exceptionally good evidence. (This is the basis of the so-called "default hypothesis".) On the other hand, while hereditarianism fits well with what we know about the development of intelligence in individuals, it can't be proven (yet). And that leads us to agnosticism pending further research - the least offensive and most defensible position.

Muntuwandi: As I said to Occam, I did not eliminate the "History of the controversy" material, I just moved it to the intro of the hypotheses section. As for your objection regarding the title "Group differences in intelligence" as being "POV": I have a hard time taking this seriously. Your objection amounts to saying "The article title Nativity of Christ is POV because there are individuals who deny the existence of a historical Jesus". As for the rest, I concur with Mike.

Ludwigs: See my comments to Slrubenstein above. Environmentalism denies any genetic contribution to between-group differences in IQ. Hereditarianism grants some genetic contribution, with the proportion of environment/genetics being variable. The 100% genetic hypothesis denies any environmental contribution. "Environmental" factors are generally broken down into "social" factors (e.g. SES) and "biological" factors (e.g. lead poisoning). Of course, some environmental factors can be "heritable", which is why research is conducted to isolate and control for such factors. --Aryaman (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not surprised, Mike, Occam and Varoon never disagree. Due to reasons stated above, I don't support Varoon's outline. Will have to wait for what others think, regarding the next step. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We can and do occasionally disagree (as the section below demonstrates), but it doesn't necessarily affect our being able to work together amicably. Maybe that's because we treat each other with respect? I don't know... --Aryaman (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of notes about VA's outline.

• The history section has to be somewhere. Personally, I'm fine with forking off a different article and summarizing here. Is there any support for that idea?
• The official statement should be one of the first things, not one of the last things. And since there is no governing body, it should probably be called something like "current scientific consensus".
• It's not clear to me how the "Group differences in intelligence" section and the "Hypotheses" section are different. It looks like there are some difficult decisions to be made about what non-SIRE results to include. For example, we know that intelligence is a heritable trait, but we don't really know how much of that is due to genetics.
• I'm not sure that a "policy implications" section needs to be included at all. It seems like discussion of that might fit in the history section, or in specific researcher articles.
• I also agree that phrasing the article as E vs. H is a bad way to go.

Finally, I'll clarify the positions since everyone seems to be messing them up. It's not "Environmentalism denies any genetic contribution to between-group differences in IQ.". Environmentalism is the position that environmental factors dominate the variation in inter racial IQ scores. Likewise, it should be pointed out that the Hereditarianism position is not 50%/50% genetics and environment. Rather, it is the position that the genetic component is large enough to effect the aggregate intelligence of races significantly. A.Prock 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman, you seem still not to understand my point. Are the hereditarian and environmentalist hypotheses the same thing? Well, it is you who are saying they are the same thing, or the same kinds of things, you are saying they are both hypotheses. I am questioning in what way either of them are hypotheses, at least in the scientific seence. And the fac remains, "genetic" refers to one cause, "environmental" refers to many different kinds of causes, granted, all similar in not being "genetic" but it still sounds to me like the difference between saying "it is because of brownian motion acting on the embryo" and "it is because he had no positive adult role model at home" are much less alike than saying "it is because of gene a" and "it is because of gene b." What am I not seeing? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Aprock: You wrote "The history section has to be somewhere". I'm assuming you've read my responses to Occam and Muntuwandi, so I don't get your point here. Are you saying you object to having this material as an introduction to the Hypotheses section? Also, the official statements make little sense until the reader has been sufficiently prepared for them. We can summarize the thrust of these statements in the lead, though, and I'd like to think that would satisfy the "get the right version out there first" impulse. Besides, the APA report was published 15 years ago, so calling it "current" would be stretching things a little. I'm sorry that the difference between studies on factors potentially affecting group IQ scores and the pseudo-philosophical attitudes people take towards the issue of causation is not sufficiently clear to you. Perhaps you could list some of the studies you think should not be discussed and we can evaluate them as a group? As for defining environmentalism and hereditarianism, we can quote Jensen & Rushton:

It is essential to keep in mind precisely what the two rival positions do and do not say—about a 50% genetic–50% environmental etiology for the hereditarian view versus an effectively 0% genetic–100% environmental etiology for the culture-only theory. The defining difference is whether any significant part of the mean Black–White IQ difference is genetic rather than purely cultural or environmental in origin. Hereditarians use the methods of quantitative genetics, and they can and do seek to identify the environmental components of observed group differences. Culture-only theorists are skeptical that genetic factors play any independently effective role in explaining group differences. Most of those who have taken a strong position in the scientific debate about race and IQ have done so as either hereditarians or culture-only theorists. Intermediate positions (e.g., gene– environment interaction) can be operationally assigned to one or the other of the two positions depending on whether they predict any significant heritable component to the average group difference in IQ. For example, if gene–environment interactions make it impossible to disentangle causality and apportion variance, for pragmatic purposes that view is indistinguishable from the 100% culture-only program because it denies any potency to the genetic component proposed by hereditarians. (pg. 238)

Slrubenstein: No, I don't understand your point. Please refer to the quote from Jensen & Rushton above, and ask whether your beef is with me or with the experts. --Aryaman (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

page structure - convenience break 2

Comparison of outlines
Wapondaponda's outline	Aryaman's outline
Lead-intro Overview Race-brief discussion Intelligence - brief discussion Test data - Description of variation within and between groups Viewpoints controversy should be summed up in this one section Environment only Genetic-Including mixed environment and genetic causes. Race is a social construct Unknown Official statements- APA, AAPA, known and unknowns Suggested causes of group differences in IQ Environmental factors Socioeconomic factors Stereotype threat Health Quality of education Racial discrimination Test construction Caste-like minorities Genetic-discussion of hereditarian theories Data and interpretations The Flynn Effect Transracial adoption studies Effect of genetic admixture on IQ Molecular genetic studies Neuroscience and intelligence Ethical issues Utility of study Sources of funding History Origins of the controversy Contemporary debates - Including The Mismeasure of Man and The Bell Curve	History This section should briefly describe the history of intelligence testing and how it has been applied to the issue of race. This should not attempt to be a history of the debate: that will be covered below. Group differences in intelligence The introduction to this section should discuss those factors which are generally recognized as affecting the development of intelligence in individuals and explain the concept of heritability. The general idea here is to set up the key points in the discussion of between-group comparisons. The question of suitability should also be treated here, along with an appropriate rebuttal. Data gathering methods This sub-section should discuss the kinds of tests used to measure intelligence as well as the criteria used to determine race. Any general, non-controversial shortcomings these methods have should be mentioned here. Intelligence test score results This sub-section should present the results of intelligence testing on racial groups. Intended here is preliminary, "uncontrolled" testing, i.e. not the kind that takes place in a controlled study such as the MTAS. In its final paragraph, this sub-section should also describe the so-called "Flynn effect", though discussion of potential causation should be omitted until the next sub-section. Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups This sub-section should discuss those factors which may influence the development of intelligence in groups. Each factor, such as: Health and Nutrition (self-explanatory) Rearing conditions (e.g. transracial adoption studies, some twin studies, etc.) Socioeconomic status (self-explanatory) Education (e.g. length of education, quality of education, etc.) Discrimination (e.g. discrimination in education, caste-like discrimination, etc.) Stereotypical behaviour (e.g. "stereotype threat") Geographic ancestry (e.g. studies comparing the ratio of African/European ancestry to IQ) Physiology (biological coordinates related to physiology, e.g. brain size, etc.) Neuropsychology (biological coordinates related to neuropsychology, e.g. neural density, speed and efficiency of neural information processing, etc.) Genetics (e.g. molecular genetics studies, etc.) should be listed under its own heading, with the main studies on that factor briefly discussed along with any pertinent criticism of those studies. Notice there is no grouping into "environmental" or "hereditarian" research here - just research on factors potentially affecting the development of intelligence in groups. Significance of group IQ differences This section should discuss the social and/or economical impact group difference in IQ - perceived or real - have on both society at large as well as the groups in question. (See here for an earlier version of this material.) Interpretations The introduction to this section should present the history of the debate beginning with Jensen's paper in the late 60's and extending through the debates of the 90's. The key papers which emerged during this period should be briefly summarized. The purpose here is to orient the reader in the current state of the debate and to make clear that there are at least four positions taken by experts. Environmental interpretations This sub-section should make a coherent presentation of the environmentalist argument, i.e. that all of the difference in test scores between groups can be accounted for by appealing to environmental factors alone. The key supporters, such as Nisbett and Ceci, and their arguments should be presented, and their work should be criticised where appropriate. Hereditarian interpretations This sub-section should make a coherent presentation of the hereditarian argument, i.e. that the difference in test scores between groups is to be accounted for by a mixture of environmental and genetic factors. The key supporters, such as Jensen and Rushton, and their arguments should be presented, and their work should be criticised where appropriate. (The 100% genetic interpretation is pretty fringe, and I don't know of any experts currently holding this position, thus it does not have its own section. If literature can be found on it, however, it should certainly be included.) Official statements This section should present the position taken by bodies of experts in official statements such as that of the APA and the AAA. To be fair, the paper Mainstream Science on Intelligence should also be discussed despite its not being an "official" statement, as it was signed by a rather large body of qualified experts and does not differ substantially from the APA report. Policy implications The section should discuss the socio-political ramifications of research into race and intelligence.

I've put the two suggested outlines next to each other for comparison here - Aryman's is more detailed, of course, (Wapondaponda - maybe you want to flesh yours out), but let's compare them. If we can agree on which sections we all agree must be there, then I can get David Kane to start working on those while we debate the sections that are still debatable. --Ludwigs2 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1) I am out next week, but after that, I can devote 2 full days to writing this up. 2) If any other editor would like to take my place, feel free to! I have only volunteered for this because no one else seems to have the time. 3) Keep in mind that I will respect WP:SIZE, so not everything will fit. 4) It is my strong preference that we (really, the rest of you) reach consensus on the outline first. Whatever you agree on, I will make a good faith effort to write up. 5) I still hope/assume that we all agree that, assuming good faith effort on my part, the version that I create becomes the basis for changes going forward. David.Kane (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, at this rate it looks like we probably won’t be starting to revise the article before the end of the week, which means we also won’t be able to do it anytime next week if David.Kane’s going to be the one writing it. But in the mean time, I guess we can at least work on refining the outline a little more, and getting as many people as possible to approve of it.

A few users here have made suggestions about Varoon Arya’s outline. There’s my suggestion about including the "significance of group IQ differences" data, and Aprock and Muntuwandi were also hoping for a little more space to be given to the history of the debate. (I don’t have a strong opinion either way about this suggestion from them, but if article size is likely to be an issue I think splitting off a one or more sub-articles might be a good idea in general.) I would suggest that Varoon Arya incrementally modify his outline as he takes other users’ requests into consideration. Ludwig, do you approve of that suggestion?

If that’s what we’re going to do, I should point out that Bryan Pesta (the psychologist I mentioned earlier) has now offered some of his advice about the article here. VA, as you modify the outline, I think you should listen to his suggestions also. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank David Kane for the hard and thoughtful work he has put into this, I think it is a positive step. I just want to be clear about a point I have been trying to make. A hypothesis is not the same thing as an argument. There may well be an environmentalist argument, but so far I have not seen an environmentalist hypothesis. I can surmise many different environmentalist hypothses; someone hee, perhaps Muntuwandi, or Varyoon Arya, or Captain Occam, once referred to an article on a specific hypothesis concerning family environment (which I believe was falisfied). The article should be clear about this distinction. David keeps space for policy discussions - I think one reason this section remains important is because it is my sense that the major arguments (not hypotheses) have been presented in the context of policy discussions where one might well expect arguments to be made. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Occam: I made some minor adjustments as you suggested. If more are needed, I won't hesitate to make them, just let me know.

Slrubenstein: I hope your approval won't change when you find out that I was the one who wrote the outline you're referring to. :/ --Aryaman (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I like it just as much and apologize for not giving credit where credit is due. Still, it seems to me that the "variables" come closer to corresponding to what scientists mean by hypotheses, and what are called hypotheses are still arguments, not hypotheses. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "hypotheses" is certainly not carved in stone here. These "positions" are also referred to as "theses", "programs", "views", "models", etc. The point of the section is to present environmentalism and hereditarianism as identifiable "positions" which have crystallized through the course of the last 30 or 40 years, and which can and do themselves serve as starting points for additional research (as when someone sets out to "disprove" the "hereditarian" model as opposed to the results of a particular piece of research). I'm flexible on the title. --Aryaman (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You changes look good to me, VA. However, there’s one thing we’ll need to do with this outline at some point before we begin editing the article, and that’s to determine exactly what lines of data should be covered in the “Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups” section, and how they should be described. I’d like to at least bring this up, although we can postpone the discussion about it if there end up being other major structural aspects of your outline that we need to resolve first.

When DJ first made his proposal of a data-centric structure, he listed several lines of data that he thought it would be important for the article to cover and which it currently doesn’t. Around a week later, I posted a list of all of the data that I thought the article should cover, combining the items listed in DJ’s original proposal with the ones already covered by the article. Here’s that list again, although I’ve made some comments about a few of the items on it, regarding where they should go and how they should be described.

• Socioeconomic factors
• Stereotype threat (According to my discussions with Mr. Pesta, research conduced in the past five years regards this as being just unlikely as a cause of the IQ difference as socio-economic status is. It should still be mentioned, but the article should probably reflect the most current opinions about it.)
• The Flynn effect (You’ve already said this’ll go in the “intelligence test score results” section, but I’m including it here because it was on the original list.)
• Black and biracial children raised by white parents
• African ancestry and IQ
• Molecular genetic studies
• Health / nutrition
• Quality of education
• Racial discrimination in education
• Caste-like minorities
• the implications of within group heritability for between group heritability (This could possibly go in the “Group differences in intelligence” section.)
• Spearman's hypothesis and reaction time data (This could possibly go in the “Intelligence test score results” section.)
• adoption and early intervention programs
• structural equation modeling of between group differences
• regression equations among siblings
• brain size and other biological correlates
• evolutionary models (see the January issue of PAID)

I think all of this data should be described in the article in some capacity, although for some of it I’m not sure how or where. In addition to deciding where in the article some of these lines of data should go, we also need to decide what factors were isolated by some of the studies that’ll be going in the “Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups” section. For example, what factors are being isolated by studies comparing IQ to level of African ancestry, or structural equation models? Or should those go in the “intelligence test score results” section?

I trust you to fit these lines of data into the structure in whatever way works best. What matters to me is just that we cover them one way or another, and that we figure out specifically how to cover them before we begin revising the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is how I would handle it, structurally: distinguish between the data that raises the key questions, and the data collected in the course of seeking answers. Or, put another way, there is the basic data used to make the claim that there are significant between-group diferences in average IQ scores. This to my mind stands apart. Then there are various hypotheses people have had to explain this data. In the course of testing these hypotheses, additional data has been collected. I think this additional data should be presented in relation to the relevant hypothesis being tested. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right in seeing a distinction here, Slrubenstein. I've referred to the "trigger" data as "preliminary" and/or "uncontrolled" as opposed to the data gathered in a controlled study. I realize this is not very good terminology, and I'm certainly open to improvements here. The preliminary data, i.e. that which triggers the additional research, should be presented in the section "Intelligence test score results". The other kind of research, which is done with the preliminary research in mind and attempts to explain those results, are controlled studies which attempt to isolate particular factors and estimate their significance in terms of their impact on group figures. In the outline, this research would be presented under "Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups" which is applicable to both environmental factors (social and biological) as well as genetic factors. As long as you're not suggesting we group such studies under "environmental" and "hereditarian" research, then I think we're in agreement.

And Occam: I'm just heading out, so I don't have time right now to integrate those points. However, I can already see where most of them would fit, and I will try to get back to this either later today or tomorrow. --Aryaman (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Varoon Arya, I am in complete agreement with what you write, above. I would like to see A.Prock and Muntuwandi weigh in - it is indeed difficult to find the write words to describe this distinction, but I am sure we can solve this. And "Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups" is much better than "Hereditarian vs. Environmentalist." I think the former (your phrasing above) comes much closer to describing how science works; the latter may fit more with how non-scientists think of these problems, or how some scientists have tried to communicate to non-scientists ... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to review it right now, but should before the end of the day. A.Prock (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Occam: I reorganized the list of factors under the "Variables" heading with short explanations of what would go where. Several of the others should probably be discussed in other sections, as you note above. As I said before, it may make sense to briefly list the methods used in these studies in the introduction to the section along with important theoretical and manipulatory concepts. As for "Evolutionary models", my reading of Jensen & Rushton leads me to suspect that this may be presented by its proponents as an alternative to "canonical" hereditarianism and/or environmentalism. I'm not familiar enough with this aspect to say for sure, and would appreciate more information. --Aryaman (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is looking pretty good so far. I’ve got a couple of other suggestions, though. (I hope you don’t mind me asking you to change these things, rather than changing them myself—since you’re the one who came up with the outline, I feel like it would be best for you to be the one who modifies it based on the rest of our suggestions.)

1: Your outline doesn’t mention where we would discuss Spearman’s hypothesis, structural equation modeling, or regression among siblings. I’m guessing that’s because you think those topics should go in sections other than “Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups”, but it would still be useful to resolve ahead of time where this information should go.

2: You might consider this a nit-pick, but I think it’s at least worth mentioning: I don’t think I approve of the article labeling the two hypotheses about the cause of the IQ difference as “Hereditarianism” and “Environmentalism”. While the hypothesis that genes play a significant role in causing the IQ difference could definitely be considered part of Hereditarianism, it’s pretty clear from the article about this school of thought that it concerns a much wider range of subjects than just race and intelligence. Labeling this hypothesis about the cause of the IQ difference as “hereditarianism” seems like it would imply that this hypothesis is hereditarianism, and that hereditarianism doesn’t include anything beyond this. As for Environmentalism, the article about that viewpoint describes it as concern for environmental conservation. I’m sure we can also come up with a better term than this for the hypothesis that the IQ difference is caused 100% by environmental factors.

I would suggest that these sections be labeled as “Environmental explanations” and “Hereditarian explanations”. The word “hypotheses” in place of “explanations” would be OK also. Do you agree that one of those would be preferable over your proposal’s current wording?

As for evolutionary models, DJ listed the papers from PAID that covered this. This is quoted from his earlier comment:

Volume 48, Issue 2 of PAID included 5 articles in a section titled "National IQs and evolutionary theories of intelligence: a discussion". Here are the articles:

• Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsboom, Conor V. Dolan, Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 91-96, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.028.
• J. Philippe Rushton, Brain size as an explanation of national differences in IQ, longevity, and other life-history variables, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 97-99, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.029.
• Richard Lynn, Consistency of race differences in intelligence over millennia: A comment on Wicherts, Borsboom and Dolan, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 100-101, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.007.
• Donald I. Templer, Can't see the forest because of the trees, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 102-103, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.011.
• Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsboom, Conor V. Dolan, Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 104-106, ISSN 0191-8869, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.020.

Whoever’s going to revise the article should probably read these. I haven’t yet because I don’t have access to them right now, but I can probably find a way to get access within a few days if nobody else is able to get them.

I suspect that you’re right about these being alternatives to the two main hypotheses about the cause of the IQ difference, but evolutionary scenarios may also involve lines of evidence that aren’t being discussed with regard to other versions of these hypotheses, such as Rushton’s comparison of “life-history” traits between Africans, Europeans and Asians. I think this information should probably at least be mentioned, even if it doesn’t deserve as much space as the more widely-accepted data that you’ve listed in the “Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups” section. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Spearman's hypothesis: I would be inclined to put this in the "History" section, though I could also see this going in the introduction to "Group differences in intelligence". This is something we could discuss as a group.

Structural equation modelling and regression analysis: As long as we're talking about methods of data manipulation, I'd discuss these in the introductory paragraphs to the "Variables" section. If we're talking about specific results which arise as a result of, say, applying regression analysis to sibling data, then we would need to look at the specific research to find a better fit.

The wording of the "Hypotheses" section obviously was not working, so I've gone ahead and modified it, changing the title and sub-titles to something I think takes your concerns into account, as well as those of Slrubenstein. Let me know what you think.

The articles you've listed definitely need to be obtained before we can make a decision on the "evolutionary models". Do we know if DJ has access to them? One possibility, though, is that, provided we go with the new title, we could write a sub-section on this at a later point in time. --Aryaman (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say Spearman's hypothesis and regression analysis go under neuropsychology and genetics, respectively. Strucutural equation modelling is considering all factors and should probably go in the introduction. As for Evolutionary models, I took a look at those papers. It's mostly about applying r/K selection theory to races, and how life history variables correlate to intelligence, hypothetically as a result of following r or K strategies. I guess the idea is that higher levels of parental care allow longer brain maturation times, coupled with the theory that cold climates are cognitively demanding (I personally have doubts about the 'cold-climate' theory, I have a feeling population density is a better avenue of investigation, but who cares what I think ;) ). There's some stuff about ancient brain size and estimating intelligence from cultural achievements. If we did include it right now I think it should have it's own section, maybe 'Evolutionary models'. But I think it might be best to discuss this after the first version is done. mikemikev (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC) actually on second thought maybe Spearman's hypothesis should go in the history section.

Ignoring the minor details, it seems that Occam, Mike and I agree that this outline is slowly shaping up to be good enough to use as a framework for our first serious revision. Slrubenstein has commented on it favourably without voicing explicit approval. The others have not commented (yet). I really hope someone isn't avoiding commenting now with the intention of chiming in when it comes time to take action with the blanket "I-don't-like-it-so-let's-reject-it" vote. Now is the best time to voice concerns and make suggestions for changes. Case in point: Slrubenstein voiced his concern with the word "hypotheses", I agreed this was probably not the best choice, and it has been changed - hopefully to our mutual approval. I'm not expecting everyone to comment here, but I'd like to hear from Aprock and David in particular as to whether they could live with using this for our first draft. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

VA, I’m not sure we should expect David.Kane to comment on this anytime soon. According to a few of his recent comments here, for the next week he won’t be available at all, and he may have left already. I agree that it would be useful to get Aprock’s opinion, though.

By the way, I’ve got the PAID papers now, and can send them to you if you like. I’d need your e-mail address before I can do that, though. If you don’t want to post it anywhere on-wiki, you can also contact me at my own e-mail address (microraptor at gmail dot com) and I’ll send them to you in reply. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a good outline.

Concern - somewhere between "Intelligence test score results" and "Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups" is a middle layer of rather important research results. It's not clear where they belong and that they should all be expressed together. Perhaps they implicitly belong in "Intelligence test score results", but it might not be that simple. The missing research is the fine-grained characterization of the proximal underlying structure of group differences in test results and their proximal phenotypic covariants. These studies speak to the "validity" and importance of the differences but not to their ultimate causes per se. Three areas I noticed aren't explicitly mentioned:

1) the factor structure of test score differences -- including the contribution of psychometric bias, the contribution of g and other ability factors, etc. -- the finding of the psychometric equivalence of between and within group phenotypic differences

2) group differences with respect to educational, occupational, and social correlates of test scores -- sometimes called the horizontal g nexus

3) group differences with respect to neurological and chronometric correlates of IQ scores -- sometimes called the vertical g nexus

The common thread of these topics is that they don't address ultimate causes (genes vs environment) but they are more detailed investigations than just reporting average IQ test scores. --DJ (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this material would fit best if discussed after the test scores but before the variables its own sub-section. As for a title, I'm wide open. Suggestions? --Aryaman (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the proposed outline above. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I notice that your version of the outline omits most of the same lines of data that are omitted from the current article. (Spearman’s hypothesis, reaction time, regression among siblings, brain size, etc.) Is this intentional, or were you intending to include them somewhere?

I’m guessing this omission was intentional, since your version of the outline splits the data into “environmental factors” and “hereditarian theories”, and that division is why the current article omits this data. Since the division results in this data being classified as “hereditarian evidence”, people like you, Alun and Ramdrake have been of the opinion that this data needed to be excluded from the article because including it would be providing too much space to topics related to the hereditarian hypothesis. Am I correct to assume that your proposal for the article would continue excluding this data for the same reason? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Occam, You had suggested that data and interpretations section would include data that could be argued both ways. If you can give examples of publications that have used environmental arguments based on Spearman's hypothesis, or regression among siblings then I would consider including them in the outline. If not, they can be used as evidence for hereditarian explanations. As for Brain size, I believe it is covered in Neuroscience and intelligence. But you are correct in stating that since the hereditarian view is a minority position, it should be given less space in the article. I have also omitted evolutionary scenarios, because I am not sure what information is to be included. As I have previously mentioned, many evolutionary theories are highly speculative seeing that we do not have prehistoric IQ data. Evolutionary hypotheses are usually meant to explain the genetic hypotheses, so the net effect is a hypotheses of a hypotheses. If you would like evolutionary scenarios to be included, I would suggest creating a thread which would have some the data you wish to include. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I'm not impressed by your proposal. Aryaman's idea allows all data and causes to be placed in the same section. Yours splits the issue into 3 overlapping categories, and it is very unclear where some information will go. This will compromise long term stability. Regression supports genetic causes, so therefore we omit it? Lead poisoning is environmental, so we omit that? Caste like minorities? You see how extremely biased you are being? Can we ask you to name publications using genetic arguments based on racial discrimination? What you're saying doesn't even make sense. And you really want to omit brain-size data because it's covered in Neuroscience and intelligence? This is information suppression. There's big difference between undue weight and total omission. mikemikev (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mikemikev. And you don’t seem to be understanding what I’ve explained about lines of data such as regression among siblings: even though they aren’t arguments for environmental causes per se, any environmental explanation will still have to account for them, because any environmental explanation that doesn’t will be inconsistent with the data. For this reason Richard Nisbett spends several pages in Intelligence and How to Get It discussing regression among siblings, and how he thinks environmental factors could cause it.

Wikipedia’s policy for articles about controversial topics is to let the data speak for itself, and allow readers to form their own conclusions based it. So I consider it unencyclopedic for the article to omit certain lines of data for the reason you’re wanting to omit them, particularly when these lines of data are being discussed by authors on both sides of the debate. This problem is also what’s resulted in the current article’s lack of stability, so your proposal is unlikely to make it any more stable than it was before the mediation.

I don’t need to start a new thread about how I think your proposal should be modified, because there’s already an alternative proposal which I approve of because it doesn’t have the problems that yours does. Slrubenstein has said that he approves of the alternative proposal also, and you’re the only user here who’s expressed clear disapproval of it. If you want the rest of us to prefer your proposal over Varoon Arya’s, it’s your own responsibility to improve it so that it’s preferable over VA’s. If you don’t, that won’t prevent the article from being revised; that just means we’ll probably be using his proposal rather than yours. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that hypotheses should be includede with the data that resulted from the subsequent research. As for Varoon's outline, I consider it a step in the right direction but I do not consider it perfect. Several of Muntuwandi's points are pretty reasonable and I wish Varoon could accommodate them. for one thing, I do not understand this point about sibling regressions. Heritability is a measure of in-group pvariation. What possible implications could it have for between group variation? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, there is the problem of how much related research results to present. For example, I think we all agree that the heritability of IQ should be mentioned somewhere. But I agree with Slrubenstein here. In depth reviews of sibling studies don't seem appropriate for this article. A.Prock (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

notes on VA's outline:

• The description of the "environmental hypothesis" is incorrect and needs to be fixed. Specifically, it should highlight two facts. First, there is direct evidence that many environmental factors can affect IQ, and that there is only indirect evidence that genetics can affect IQ. Second, the variation of between group performance is less than the variation that can be caused by environmental effects. In other words, the hypothesis is that environmental factors dominate genetic factors. Genetic factors may still affect between group intelligence, just not enough to account for significant variation.
• There needs to be inclusion of caste-like minorities somewhere.
• I generally like the "Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups" organization.
• It's not clear where an extended discussion of the "Flynn effect" occurs.
• I'm not at all comfortable including a separate section for policy implications. I'm not at all sure what the "Significance of group IQ differences" is about or that it should be included. I think that if these sort of discussions are to be included, I would take the "Ethical Issues" from Wapondaponda's outline.
• It's not clear what is in the lede, but certainly the current scientific consensus should be reflected there.

A.Prock (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

renaming article to Race and IQ

Having a data-centric approach will be much easier if the first thing you do is rename the article from Race and intelligence to 'Ethnicity and IQ as that is what the data is about. Having a data-centric article about two topics that nobody can define, one of which the scientific consensus is that it doesn't exist, is inherently impossible. I'm sorry you have been barking up the wrong tree for two months... --OpenFuture (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We’ve tried renaming the article before. The most recent attempt was under the title Between-group differences in IQ, but just like every other time this was tried, consensus opposed this change so strongly that the article was moved back to its original title pretty quickly.

“Race” seems to be the most common term used in the academic literature on this topic, and mental ability is most often discussed in terms of g, the general factor of mental ability. IQ is the most common way of quantifying g, but there’s also mental chronometry and a few other methods, so I think calling the article “race and IQ” would be too narrow a description of what it covers. I wouldn’t have a problem with it being called “Race and g”, but it would probably be too difficult for lay people to understand the meaning of that title. And in any case, I doubt there will ever be a consensus for changing the article’s title.

By the way, if you’re going to participate in the discussion here you need to formally sign into the mediation. Ludwig can explain how to do that. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I also supported renaming to "Race and IQ" to try and distinguish between the nebulous "intelligence" of social discourse and the specific "intelligence" of psychometric research. But, this was rejected as "POV-pushing" or some such policy violation.

As a note: We will need to have a summary of Environment and intelligence at some point in the article, preferably prior to any discussion of the environmental-hereditarian debate.

Also: Who supports the 100% environmental hypothesis, anyway? Can we get a list of major proponents and relevant publications? --Aryaman (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support renaming it to Race and IQ, or Ethnicity and IQ. A.Prock 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

VA, I think it’s probably best to save the discussion about that for when we’re a little further along with our progress towards revising the article. Right now, Ludwig wants us to just focus on making sure we know what structure it should have.

It’s good to see that you’re getting more able to be involved in the discussion here than you were during most of February. Do you still think you won’t have time to revise the article yourself, though? Not that there’s anything specific wrong with David.Kane doing this, but you were definitely everyone’s second choice for it after DJ. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty tied up at the moment, with my free time being highly irregular and prone to frequent interruption. I have some time coming up in a few days, but it won't be enough to draft the article. I will, however, be around here as much as possible to help out where I can.

As far as the structure goes, I would reorganize some things. For me, the core points are (1) differences in test scores between races, (2) factors which are known to impact the development of intelligence in individuals, (3) studies conducted to determine the extent to which those factors may affect racial groups, and (4) arguments for and against the ability of those known factors to explain the test score differences between racial groups. I would start by writing those four section of the article, and then flesh out the rest accordingly, adding some background, a section explaining how "race" and "intelligence" are being used/determined in this context (including some brief discussion of testing methods), etc. The structure will necessarily remain in flux for some time, so I think we would be able to start editing sooner if we could get everyone to agree on a certain number of core points and concentrate on those first. This could be done on a section-by-section basis, with Ludwigs opening a section here on the mediation page, editors being allowed to make a statement regarding what they think belongs in that section, and then David taking those notes and writing up a first draft of the section. --Aryaman (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind renaming it "Race and I" Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I mean race and IQ. I am having problems iwth my keyboard and sometimes I type a letter and it does not show up. I am sorry for the trouble it may cause. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

them be fightin' words.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Slrubenstein: What would be the purpose of calling it “Race and I”? Who’s “I”? We obviously aren’t supposed to be writing articles about ourselves here. If what you meant to say is “Race and IQ”, you really ought to be more careful with your spelling. Most of the time I can understand what you’re saying, but it always requires more effort for your posts than those of anyone else here, and there are some situations like this one when I’m really not sure what you mean.

VA: Your structure proposal sounds reasonable to me; I think I might have based mine a little too heavily on the article’s current structure. You’re welcome to edit my proposal at the top of this section in order to incorporate some of these ideas, if you like. Otherwise, when David.Kane begins revising the article tomorrow, I encourage him to consider your suggestion also and take any ideas from it that he agrees would be beneficial. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

straw poll - shall we rename the article to Race and IQ

shall we rename the article to Race and IQ? {{tick}} or {{cross}} as usual. also specify if you have a preference between 'race' and 'ethnicity' --Ludwigs2 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Y Support renaming to Race and IQ. "Race" and "ethnicity" certainly overlap here, with ethnicity probably being the more redeemable of the two, so I can understand why "ethnicity" might seem better to some. However, I think "race" is the term used most frequently in the literature, particularly in article and book titles. --Aryaman (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

N Oppose renaming. While I agree that the majority of the data on this topic comes from IQ tests, renaming the article to "Race and IQ" would imply that IQ is the only source of data about it, which isn't the case. Some of the literature on this topic focuses specifically on reaction time and/or scholastic achievement, which can be considered aspects of intelligence or mental ability, but would not be included under the heading "IQ". Because of its relevance to this topic, I don't think such literature should be excluded from the article, but I also think that renaming the article to "Race and IQ" while it includes this material would imply that it has a narrower scope than it actually does. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Question: I agree that "(general) mental ability" would be the best term here, though it is probably a bit ... ungainly. Yet, aren't things like reaction time and scholastic achievement being discussed as corollaries to IQ (which, for our purposes, is conterminous with g)? --Aryaman (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by “corollaries”. They’re measuring the same thing that IQ measures, a little more directly with mental chronometry than with scholastic achievement, but they don’t measure IQ itself. IQ and mental chronometry are two different ways of quantifying g, and neither is necessarily superior to the other. (Jensen seems to be of the opinion that mental chronometry is actually preferable among the two, because it can produce an absolute number in milliseconds rather than just a relative scale—he talks about this in Clocking the Mind.) So I don’t think we should choose a title that implies IQ is the central trait being discussed, and that all other methods of measurement are only relevant inasmuch as they reproduce IQ test results, when that isn’t actually the case.

Do you see my point? If we have multiple, equally valid ways of measuring g (which we do), I don’t think it’s appropriate to name the article after just one of them, even if it’s the most common. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Well, as you know, my original choice here was "Race in intelligence research", but that was also rejected. So, we stick with what we have, then? --Aryaman (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ethnicity in intelligence research" would work for a data-centric article indeed. That would allow for a summary of different kinds of intelligence research that compares ethnic groups. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(I signed up above, I don't know if I need to do anything more to join the discussion properly, which it seems I should do). The problem here is of course that g is controversial, and that we have very little proof that IQ, SAT and mental chronometry actually correlates with g, unless we define g as being the correlation between IQ, SAT and chonometry. But even then we need to get data that measures all three on the same individuals. And even then the equating of g and intelligence is tentative. As mentioned in the article (or maybe the talk page, I don't remember) hunter-gatherers living in harsh environments have to be very intelligence, yet would do very poorly on IQ and SAT tests. Although IQ and mental chronometry may both correlate with some sort of general intelligence (it does seem likely), and therefore they both are equally valid ways of measuring g, that validity is actually none on both cases. You don't actually measure g with any of these tests.

But you are right that not only IQ is discussed, of course, so possible it should then be "Ethnicity and intelligence testing". But "Race and Intelligence" as a title is as relevant for a data centric article as "Unicorns vs Dragons". --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Something else I should mention about the renaming idea is that Wikipedia has several other articles about similar topics, and all of them are named the same way. For Height and intelligence, Sex and intelligence, Health and intelligence Religiosity and intelligence, Neuroscience and intelligence, Environment and intelligence or Health and intelligence, intelligence (or more precisely, g) is quantified in the same ways that it’s quantified in the research that Race and intelligence covers, but the editors of each of those articles have agreed that “X and intelligence” is the best way to name them.

I don’t see why our own article should be named differently from all of those. On the other hand, if “Race and IQ” really is a better title, then in the interest of consistency the word “intelligence” would need to be replaced with “IQ” in the titles of all of the aforementioned articles also. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They are not particularly data-centric. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So you think that our plan for this article to have a data-centric approach justifies changing its name to something different from every other Wikipedia article about a similar topic? What is it about a data-centric structure that makes this article so special as to warrant this? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid". I would hope that editors on BOTH sides of this issue would agree that this kind of subtle propaganda is EXACTLY what we need to scrupulously avoid, lest we confirm all of Fox News' dismissive badmouthing of our beloved Wikipedia. TechnoFaye Kane 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

archiving some cross talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again: You can not have a data centric article on Race and Intelligence, as race does not exist, and intelligence is undefined, and hence their exist no data on it. It's like having a data centric article on Unicorns vs Dragons. The various measurements like IQ may correlate with g, but they do not measure it. An article named "Race and Intelligence" must be an overview over research and positions in the research, with arguments from both sides keeping NPOV. As I understand it, the efforts of doing this has failed, and therefore you decided to make a data centric article. This seems reasonable, but then calling it Race and Intelligence will be misleading, as none of the data presented would relate to race, and none of it measures intelligence. Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but you did ask. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) The title really isn't all that important. Sure there may be better titles, but it's the content that's the real issue. Let's not get too bent over the title, otherwise it'll take 20 years to get past the lede. A.Prock 00:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) There’s another reason you sound like a broken record, which is that you pretty clearly haven’t read any of the discussions that occurred in this mediation before you showed up here two days ago. Do you really think you’re raising any points here that haven’t been discussed at length already? We’ve had an entire discussion, lasting several weeks, about the social and genetic meaning of the word “race”, and everyone here except you is abiding by the conclusion that was reached in it. In any case, I don’t suppose this really matters. Four to three isn’t a consensus, and I doubt that any of the users who disagree with renaming the article will change their minds. (In fact, Varoon Arya’s last comment “stick with what we have, then?” implies that he may have changed his mind in the opposite direction.) More generally, this article has kept the same name since 2003 despite at least a dozen attempts to rename it; I don’t see what reason there is to assume things will go any differently this time around. And I agree with Aprock: according to our current plan, David.Kane was supposed to start revising the article today, but because of this new argument it looks like he isn’t going to. His revising of the article isn’t something that can be postponed, because after this week he won’t be available anymore. I’m afraid that this argument over the title is interfering with our plan about revising the article, and if this results in it being delayed until David.Kane isn’t available anymore, interfering with it will be the same as preventing it entirely. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) It's not my fault if you came to the wrong conclusion with regards to the word race. I can only be sorry that I wasn't here then. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Here’s the relevant thing, which you need to remember: if you think there’s no such thing as race, in either a social or biological sense, this makes no difference whatsoever to the rest of us. If you think it should make a difference, then that’s your problem, not ours. This question has already been resolved as far as this mediation case is concerned, and I don’t think there’s any chance that the mediator will open a new discussion about this same topic because a single editor has just joined the mediation who won’t accept its existing conclusion, particularly at a time when doing so would prevent the editor we’ve agreed on from revising the article during the only period of time when he’s available. Ludwig, can you please do something about this? David.Kane is the only editor who’s available to revise the article that we’ve been able to agree on for who should do this, so if we postpone his doing so until after he’s no longer available, it may have the effect of preventing the article from being revised at all. What it will certainly do is wreck the plan we’ve had for the past several weeks about how we should go about revising it. As the mediator, it’s your responsibility to make sure the plans we’ve agreed on don’t get derailed in this manner. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Well, I'm just trying to make the right thing happen. Again: It's not my fault you have been barking up the wrong tree for weeks. I understand it's frustrating, but don't blame me. And the non-existance of race is not just my opinion, which you are trying to make it sound like. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC) If you want to make the right thing happen, then stop trying to get the article renamed, at least until after David.Kane makes his revisions to it. By trying to divert the discussion here to this topic, you’re preventing the only user we can agree on to revise the article from revising it, during the only period of time when he’s available. Do you understand that? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC) A data centric article on unicorns and dragon is not the right thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

N Oppose renaming. I don't have strong feelings about this, but I think 'Race and Intelligence' is the best name. The tag This article also discusses issues regarding ethnicity and intelligence covers ethnicity. Since race is the superset of ethnicity it's the most salient term, and as Aryaman said it's the frequent term in the literature and popular understanding. And as Occam said, IQ is not the only measure of intelligence used. The question of whether IQ tests are a good way of measuring intelligence of 'hunter-gatherers' is relevant to the article, but no reason to rename it. mikemikev (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I'm assuming that if the name is changed (which I oppose) the other names will redirect?

Y Support renaming to Race and IQ. "intelligence" as that APA notes means many different things. The debates that have led to this prolongued (but productive) mediation have to do with IQ scors. Precision is a virtue in encyclopedia articles; it is a necessity in science. I have strong feelings about this - adjunct issus would belong in linked articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Y Support renaming to Ethnicity and intelligence research. Intelligence is undefined, and race does not exist. A data centric article can not be based on things that do not exist. I'm not sure a data-centric approach is the best solution , but as that seems to be the consensus... --OpenFuture (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Y Support support. There is an argument for Ethnicity and IQ since nearly all the research is done with respect to SIRE, but reliance on SIRE will hopefully start to wane, so I think Race and IQ is fine. There is the problem that Occam mentions that there are smatterings of non-SIRE research, and non-IQ research, but I think we can handle that within the article. A.Prock 17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

N Oppose renaming. David.Kane (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

N Oppose. 1) Many of the sources used refer to "g", which is not IQ. They even talk about the difference between g and IQ. 2) Many of the cited articles use "intelligence" in their name, not "IQ". 3) The article is about race and intelligence. 4) the controversy is about race and intelligence; the fact that one race has much lower average IQ scores is uncontroversial. 4) Blatant and cowardly attempt to push a POV into the title, indicative of the bias some editors harbor, the subtle ways they seek to insert propaganda, and the reason their statements on this page can not be assumed to be made in good faith. TechnoFaye Kane 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sociological Race vs Genes

{{archive top}} {{quote box}} 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 [3] 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 [4]. 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)

Where precisely is the contradiction? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What counts, at least for this article and the mediation proces, is not what personal opinions we have about race, but what the mainstream view on race is. So far, none of the mainstream publications are sticking their necks out declaring that race is genetic reality. What is frequently mentioned in mainstream publications is that at the nucleotide level, the genetic diversity of humans is low relative to the diversity found in other closely related species. Though nucleotide differences between the continental populations are relatively small, these differences can still be used to accurately predict the continental origin of a DNA sample. The implications of the small genetic differences between different human populations is still incomplete. On one hand, the bulk of nucleotide differences are selectively neutral and have no effect on phenotype. On the other hand some differences are found in the genes that code for proteins, examples include genes that code for skin color. Most mainstream publications in molecular biology, don't use the term race, preferring terms such as Biogeographic ancestry, or clusters. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as we are in agreement that this is the mainstream view of "race" and will presented as such in the article I am satisfied. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda wrote: "So far, none of the mainstream publications are sticking their necks out declaring that race is genetic reality."

Whether or not that's true (I doubt it, since "Biogeographic ancestry" is absolutely synonomous with race/ethnicity, and researchers are forced to use these weasel words because of political/media fear) the point is whether any mainstream publications say race is not a genetic reality. If you can provide any (apart from the thoroughly debunked Lewontin, or the sociologists posing as geneticists who still reference his 30 year old fallacy today) we can consider not using the terms 'Race' and 'Ethnicity' in this article. Until then we should use it, because it is what R&I scholars use and we have no place to say they are wrong to use it. mikemikev (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you can look up any of the recent publications in population genetics to verify whether the term race is used to describe the populations analyzed. I doubt you will find social constructs of race, such as "black" or "white, used to describe genetic data. I hope we can agree with one fact, mainstream studies in population genetics haven't explicitly declared "race" a genetic reality. If there are any, please provide links. Of course when studying global patterns of human genetic diversity it becomes necessary to have a representative sample, which usually means that each continental population will be represented in a study. But much of what I have seen has been a move away from continental differences and a move towards discovering genetic patterns within continents. The Hapmap project, whose genetic data is widely used, has given specific guidelines that its genetic data shouldn't be "racialized". Mikemikev, you may have some good arguments in favor of the genetic reality of race, but if these arguments have not been published in mainstream journals, then they are interesting but would violate the policies of original research. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No we don't agree. Dawkins and Edwards have both explicitly stated that race has genetic validity. And unfortunately you fail to address my point, which is that unless you can provide a solid source questioning the scientific validity of race we are in no position to question the terminology of R&I scholars. That hapmap guideline just cautions against being to precise or general, it doesn't address the validity of race. mikemikev (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide quotes or urls where there is explicit declaration or conclusion that race is real biological and genetic entity from a mainstream source. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm under no obligation to. It wouldn't affect the article if that were not proven. You are obligated to provide evidence to the contrary if you want to 'have your way' (what exactly is it you want again?). mikemikev (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But just for fun, here is an Imperial College evolutionary biologist explicitly stating races are real. mikemikev (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece, it doesn't represent mainstream science. If there is just a normal distribution on opinion among evolutionary biologists, there will of course be a certain percentage that say races are biological real among humans. That is not the same thing as mainstream science. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your claim would have more weight if you could reference a credible biologist who disagrees. mikemikev (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I can reference many many biologists who completely disagree, and geneticists. Indeed you should read what Leroi actually says. he doesn't say that "race" is real at all. What he says is that human genetic variation is real, and that people who live in geographical proximity are more genetically similar, and so "race" can be used as a proxy for genetic similarity as long as "race" refers to people who have ancestry that is geographically known. Indeed he is clear that Basques, for example, are more similar to each other than they are to non-Basques, but no one ever called the Basques a "race". That's a very different thing to saying "race" is real. Leroi goes on to say that when genetic testing gets better we can abandon "race" as a proxy for genetic similarity because we will have much more accurate data. So you'r actually misrepresenting Leroi quite badly to promote a fallacious point. Typical. But a whole website full of biologists, anthropologists and many more professionals in the field all disagreeing with Leroi, though I expect you'll invoke your "credible biologist" clause now, a "credible biologist" being only those who agree with you. The problem is that you have a very bad case of confirmation bias. Alun (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's fair to say the Basques are an ethnic group of the white race? I think this point also addresses some of the website you linked to. Please don't respond with an essay on genetic clusters (no offence). mikemikev (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

reading this, I think part of the problem here is a confusion about the difference between 'race' (which I take to be an effort to group individuals in the present tense) and 'genetic heritage' (which I take to be effort to determine ancestral roots). for example, I'm quite sure that a geneticist could identify genes in me that derive from ancestral Irish (gaelic) peoples, and could also identify genes that derive specifically from Italian (mediterranean) groups. Likewise, I have a friend who has gaelic roots and Pacific Islander (south-east Asian) roots. neither of us identifies with any of these ancestral roots, however, and we're both typically American, with none of the behavioral or cultural identifications of any of them. It's possible even that I have some African ancestry in my genome (southern Italians have more than a little mixing with north African peoples). I don't see a problem with the 'genetic heritage' point, but I personally would find it a bit odd for some geneticist to declare that I am Irish because I have some cluster of Irish genes, and I'd find it absurd if that geneticist then attached a value-laden racial claim (e.g. that I'm at risk of being a drunk) because of that clustering. Don't get me wrong: if a geneticist discovered the genes that code for alcoholism and found that those genes actually are associated with Irish genetic heritage, that would be one thing, but mixing a loose 'genetic heritage' idea with a set of cultural preconceptions (not to mention stereotypes) to create a value-laden definition of race strikes me as a stretch. do any scholarly sources actually take it that far? --Ludwigs2 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I think you are making a useful distinction. When geneticists talk among themselves, they use terms like "populations" that have different gene frequencies, and that vary depending on geography. Now, in some parts of the world and at certain times there could be a fairly close approximation between this and self-identified race, but in other times and places (Brazil is often cited as a good example) they do not correspond well at all. I'll also point out that historians make certain distinctions that most people do not and might consider pedantic - for example, there may well be a genetic continuity between someone living in Kenya today and people who lived in the same are 10,000 years ago, but no historian - natural or otherwise - would talk about "Kenyan genes" because 10,000 years ago it is a good bet people living there did not call themselves "Kenyan" (historians generally try to avoid anachronistic figures of speech.) How people identify themselves, and with whom people identify, can change pretty quickly. This does not mean that there is not a genetic connecion between you and people in the past (the biggest problem is that when biologists take a sample of your genes, all they can establish is some continuity between you and a teensy weensy portion of your ancestors of a couple of thousand years ago, and that is not too long ago, and we know knowthing about the rest!

I think your proposal about using the phrase "genetic heritage" is constructive but I would like to know what Muntuwandi and Aprock and others think. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This kind of confusion is deliberately created by those who wish to obfuscate the issue. I reiterate: provide references to credible biologists who say racial categorization is not useful, or stop wasting everybodies time with ill-informed conjecture, so we can write the article. mikemikev (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@ mikemike: this is mediation, not WWE Smackdown. As best I can tell, There is a small group of scholars who present the idea that race is a genetic categorization. They are not fringe, and it is a notable perspective, but it is not by any means the current accepted understanding of the issue in any discipline that I know of. Th perspective needs to be included to an extent that keeps it in balance with the conventional views on the matter. I don't think anyone disagrees with this point, so I'm not sure what it is you're arguing for, or why you're arguing with such vehemence. can you explain? --Ludwigs2 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, I apologise if my tone appears too aggressive. I think it will be helpful if I can give a summary of my position, and it's relation to what I see as the positions of others.

Slrubenstein and others appear to arguing against the biological validity of race. Their objective appears to be replacing the word race with superset or synonomous weasel words such as "group", "biogeographic ancestry" or "genetic heritage", and possibly also going as far as breaking up or deleting the article. I have referenced several very reliable biologists who have explicitly stated that race, despite being poorly defined and with many grey areas, is a useful scientific concept. I have requested many times that the others provide contemporary, reliable references to the contrary, a request they have consistently ignored, all the while asking me for more references, and maintaining that their opinion is "mainstream", despite providing as yet zero references.

I am a little disappointed that you have not addressed this, Ludwig.

In addition, even if some scholars thought race was not useful or scientifically valid, it would not affect the article. R&I scholars think it is useful. They are well aware of race/ethnicity distinctions and mixed-race issues, actually they address these points in detail. All we can do is present their arguments neutrally, because there is no solid evidence they are wrong. There is no problem with including a (well referenced) section saying that some scholars (I don't know of any) say race is too vague to be useful/predictive.

What I'm arguing for, quite simply, is to go ahead with data-centric proposal, as I see no reasonable objection. mikemikev (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev, all I have been arguing for is to use the AAA[5] and APA statements on race and IQ as principal points of reference for identifying mainstream, majority, an fringe views concerning race. Ludwigs2 just proposed wording that he hoped various parties - and I certainly include Aryaman and Captain Occam, as well as Muntuwandi and Aprock - would find acceptable. Mediation will be successful only if we all wish to find compromise and mutual ground. I know I have been a frequent source of frustration to Aryaman, and he is aware that I fee the same way. But I know that he entered this mediation in good faith and really is seeking some kind of mutually acceptable accommodation. I truly beliee this and I hope he knows that. But I honestly have to wonder: do you?

Ludwigs2, Mikemikev has introduced links to sources he believes supports his position. I know that as mediator, your task is to prmote a process that facilitates collaborationamong editors, it is not your task to review sources. But your recent comment shows an earnest attempt to grasp the different views of scientists. While I still think the AAA and APA statements are the reasonable key points of reference, since Mikmikev introduced a link, I hope you do not mind if I do. It is by an established scholar and was presented at a professional conference (meaning: it did not go through peer review, but I give it greater creedance than an opiniuon piece, a it was written for peer). For what it is worth, I share this because I believe it does represent the mainstream science and does explain in fairly accessible language the key isues: [6]. It is an explicit attempt to sum up the state of knowledge at the time, so it is very valuable in articulating what I consider the mainstream view. Above, an anonymous IP (but I preseume, Mikemikev) wrote, "I reiterate: provide references to credible biologists who say racial categorization is not useful, or stop wasting everybodies time with ill-informed conjecture, so we can write the article." Okay, I will respond to your demand. Ludwigs2, I know it is not your job to read this stuff but if you are trying to sor out the different views, I sincerely believe you will find this useful. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@ mikemike: For me it's not so much a question of sources at this stage - it's a question of conceptualizations. My sense is that you are using the concept 'race' in a way that presupposes that race is a biological/genetic construct, and that's making you think that others are trying to oppose (what to you are) commonsensical assertions about the genetic nature of race. But I don't think that's what they are trying to do at all. You have to see that they have different concerns than you. just as you are concerned that the possibility of a biological basis for race not be excluded from the article, they are concerned that the possibility of a biological basis not be presented as a truth or an established fact that dominates the article. The issue is still open in the scientific world, and I think we all agree that we're not going to resolve it on Wikipedia, so the question here is not about exclusion or conclusion, but rather about balance. The problem I'm having with your posts above, however, is that I don't see you trying to work towards a balance - I see you trying to push for a position, and other editors are pushing back, and that's where the conversation is stuck. the Question I have for you is how do we work what you want to include into balance with the rest of the material in the article? --Ludwigs2 10:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be resolved by including a section "Scientific validity of race" in the article. mikemikev (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

well, can you expand on that? I mean, SIRE is a perfectly valid scientific approach to race without any genetic elements. it's clear to me that you mean something else, having to do with genetics, and this title doesn't capture that. --Ludwigs2 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Ludwig, I completely agree that SIRE is a perfectly valid scientific approach to race without any genetic elements. I suggested this section as a compromise to Slrubenstein/Wapondaponda, even though I really think such a section and indeed this whole mediation digression (which I didn't start) belongs in "Race and genetics". I think such a section would capture the discussion above: some scholars think race is too vague to be informative, some don't. This would necessarily include some genetic points. Considering the APA fall into the first category, trying to anchor the article to their statement is the real POV pushing here. The AAA and APA statements are POV. We cannot base this article on them. And can I ask SLR/WPP if the data-centric proposal is unacceptable to them? mikemikev (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ok though don't misunderstand the APA. I don't think they are saying that race is uninformative - that would be naive - I think they are merely saying that race is not a 'solid' categorization. I'm sure they would recognize the importance of the race construct even without any genetic underpinning. but let's see what other have to say here. --Ludwigs2 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand Mikemikev's accusation that using the APA and AA statements are POV "pushing." He says the statements are POV. Well, so what? I mean, is not everything in Wikipedia a point of view? What would we include in this section that could not be a point of view? A "datacentric" approach means we start with the test scores. But once we do that, we need to explain what we mean by race. And any section on what the word "race" means will have to comply with our NPOV policy by providing all major points of view. SO isn't providing points of view precisely what we are supposed to be doing?

The question is, what is the mainstream view, what are minority views, and what are fringe views - NPOV calls on us to make these distinctions. Since the AAA and the APA are the organizations that represent the vast majority of specialists on research on either race or IQ testing, I think it is perfectly reasonable to use their statements as benchmarks for identifying mainstream points of view. How can we not base a discussion of points of view o race on these statements? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not object to using the APA/AAA statements. I objected to using them as the basis for the article. Again you misrepresent me. They are one POV and should be included.

We don't need to explain the meaning of race. This is done in the "Race" article. We don't need to explain the meaning of "Height" in the "Height and Intelligence" article. If people want a precise discussion they can go to the relevant article. This is how wikipedia works. All we need to do is state the selection method used (SIRE).

Since R&I involves making genetic claims about races we need to ask geneticists whether this is reasonable, not just the APA or AAA, who only address the sociological vagueness of race in the USA, and are severely ill-informed with regard to biological aspects. My understanding is that geneticists consider both sides in the R&I debate reasonable.

I'm sorry but the APA does not represent the international scientific community.

I understand that this makes writing the article more difficult, but for it to be balanced we have no choice.

So to answer your question there is no mainstream, minority or fringe view, just equally plausible hypotheses which should be represented in the article.

I hope I have satisfied your concerns and we can move on. mikemikev (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the one calling for a section on "scientific validity of race." There is no way to discuss the validity of a concept without defining what the concept is.

You say there is not mainstrea, majority or fringe views. You are wrong. There are, and WP:NPOV demands we identify them when they exist. We cannot do an end run around NPOV. It is obvious to me that the APA and AAA statements, which represent virtually all researchers working on race andintelligence, represent the majority view; I believe they represent the mainstream view. What is your evidence that they do not?

You claim that they are ill-informed about biology yet mny members of the AAA re world-leading researchers on human evolution and genetics. What is the asis for your claim?

You also claim that biologists see "both sides" of the debate as reasonable. First of all, simply to say thereare two sides to the debate is itself a point of view. Other people woking here towards a compromise have pointed out that there are many sides to this debate. Moreover, there ar emany debates. So what are you referring to? I know that geneticists debate the heritability of IQ, some putting it at 40%, others around 60-70%. To my knowledge the other major debate among geneticists is over the effects of of the shared prenatal environment - some argue that identical blood supply should lead to greater similarities between monochoriatic twins than dichorionic twins; others argue that competition for blood supply should lead to greater differences between monochorionic twins than dichorionic twins. Is this the debate to which you refer? I do think genetists right now see both sides as reasonable. How do you see this as fitting into the article?

If you ar referring to the debate going on in Rushton's mind, I have not seen any evidence of geneticists researching this topic. Genetisists are for the most part researching variation within groups. I have not seen anything written by a genetists on his research concerning between-group differences; if such work exists I doubt it reflects the work of most geneticsts, but of course you should share that research with us. (of course, a genetisist can express a view about anything, e.g. whether they think we should limit CO2 emmisions or raise the VAT, but unless it is the result of genetic research I do not see how their personal opinions are relevant. What makes geneticists important is that they conduct research on genes and inheritanc. In an article that takes a "data-centric" approach, it is thir research, an no their personal opinions, that matters).

The AAA and APA statements reflect the Views of people involved in research on these topics and seem to me to be the only reasonalbe starting point for any discussion of scientific validity o race. Not that this is settled let's move on.Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's not have a section on the scientific validity of race, I'm glad we agree there.

Just so we know we are on the same page, which year AAA statement on race are you refering to?

Yes, I'm well aware there are more than exactly two non-overlapping positions. My point was refering to two ends of a continuum. Did you really think I was refering to the pre-natal environment (generally known to be trivial in intelligence development outside severe malnutrition/poisoning)?

So my question is: what year AAA report are you refering to? mikemikev (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this discussion going anywhere. So we might as well agree to disagree on the question of biological/genetic races and instead focus on SIRE, which is what much of the data is based on. All we would need to mention is that the concept of race from a biological/genetic perspective remains a controversial issue, and simply redirect to the appropriate articles, Race (classification of human beings), race and genetics, human genetic variation and human genetic clustering for further information. However, we do need to mention that some of the critics of research into RI have argued that race is primarily a social construct, and that the failure to create an objective criteria for the definition of human races that can be used consistently, compromises RI research. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the discussion was about whether or not to use the AAA report as a reference point in this article. I would like it cleared up. I am waiting for Slrubenstein to specify exactly which report he wants to use. mikemikev (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the AAA statement, dated 1998 [7]. A better document is the statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. This is better in two ways. First, it is more recent, being issued in 2009. Second, Physical Anthropologists are those who specifically study humanity as a biological species; these are the guys who are experts in human osteology and morphology, as well as human genetics. Their statement: [8] Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about how to mediate disputes concerning the Race and Intelligence article. Now, you have aked a specific queston so I will answer it: whatever is th eost recent AAA statement on race or race and intelligence. Now that I have answered your question we can go back to the matter at hand. You have removed your proposal for a setion on the scientific valididty of race. Fine. Now, Muntuwandi has made a proposal for how to resolve this particular matter in his 16:30, 13 February 2010 post. I endorese his proposal. Ludwigs2, unless you think his proposal is unworkable, can we just put one of those boxes around it as conflict resolved and archive this discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, since you are proposing to use this AAA report as a basis for this article, I think it's reasonable that you are specific about it. Please provide a title, date, and if possible a link. Otherwise I think it's fair that we can assume not to use it, since some people may not know what you are talking about. mikemikev (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I just wrote? What I am proposing is that we accept Muntuwandi's proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So we can consider it resolved that we don't use the AAA statement as a basis? Before discussing WPP's proposal I would like, if I may, to make some points about using the APA statement as a basis. I have the year for this one: 1996. mikemikev (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Several months ago, Aryaman proposed that we use the APA statement as a starting point. Given the centrality of psychometric research to this article, I think that is a fair request/proposal and while he and I hve disagreed on many things, I suppor him on this. Most others who have been involved in this mediation agree with him too. Now, I am not sure that you are a formal part of this mediation, and I never saw you edit the article on race and intelligence. I am really focusing on trying to mediate my problems with Aryaman, captain Occam, and others who signed up for this mediation. But I do not see why anyone would take objection to using the APA statement as a starting point.

I personally woul go further and say it should be considered in any discussion of mainstream, majority, minority and fringe points of view. WP:NPOV demands that we provide all significant views from notable sources and that we give them due weight. We need a point of reference, and this seems like a good one.

Given that the AAPA statement is more recent thn the AAA statement, and also represents the leading experts on population genetics and other tudies of humans as biological organisms, I actually would defer to the AAPA statement over the AAA statement, but I think it too should be used as a point of reference in these discussions.

I do not want to waste any time "making points" about these statements - that sounds too much like soap-boxing, and the purpose of this page is to mediate disputes. Actual discussions about improving the article belong on the article talk page. Here, let's resolve disputes.

These are contentious topics so it makes sense to use the statements of the scientists who do the research as points of reference. Beyond that I firmly believe we should accept Muntuwandi's very constructive proposal and move on. The whle purpose of thi process is to resolve conflects; let's start resolving them. His proposal:

we might as well agree to disagree on the question of biological/genetic races and instead focus on SIRE, which is what much of the data is based on. All we would need to mention is that the concept of race from a biological/genetic perspective remains a controversial issue, and simply redirect to the appropriate articles, Race (classification of human beings), race and genetics, human genetic variation and human genetic clustering for further information. However, we do need to mention that some of the critics of research into RI have argued that race is primarily a social construct, and that the failure to create an objective criteria for the definition of human races that can be used consistently, compromises RI research.

makes perfect sense to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thank you for the links. Ignore my preceding comment, actually I was not aware you posted something in non-chronological order. Also I posted at the same time Ludwig boxed, so it was rather confusing. I will review those statements and perhaps I can agree to using them as a basis. mikemikev (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! I posted them at the point I rasied them (obviously I should have posted the links origially) because i did not want to disrupt later discussion but I am sorry if it was confusing. As i am sure you know "science" is by definition a field of argumentation, so there is never or seldom unanimity or consensus, but these statements by the worlds' largest orgsanizations of the scientists who work on these issues is the closest we come to an indication of the "mainstream."

The statement by the American Sociological Association is also relevant; the section "Racial Classifications as a Basis for Scientific Inquiry" provides the profession's explanation of what they mean by "social construct" and how race is an object of sociological rather than biological study. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1996 AAA statement is based on Lewontin's fallacy and can be disregarded. The 2009 AAPA statement seems fine, except for this:

Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.

I would like a reference to a paper proving this statement. mikemikev (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you don't understant Wikipedia! If you want to edit here you have to comply with our cor policies. For one thing, editors cannot put their own views into articles. We all know that Edwards thinks Lewontin is wrong. That does not make Lewontin wrong, that just means there is an argument between Edwards and Lewontin. What else is new? Science is filled with arguments. Many consider Ewards to be wrong, for example Witherpoon et. al.. I guess you have not bee following discussion in other sections but Wobble has also explained the problem with relying on genetic clusters as a basis for "racial dientity." The AAA statement is on the AAA website and remais their official statement - it is an organizawtion of about 6,000 scientists, I think. Clearly, they do not agree with Edwards. So, no, you do not get to tell us to disregard the AAA statement. You can believe what you want to. So can I. But Wikipedia is based on significant views from reliable sources. The AAA statement is a significant view from a reliable source.

That said I again register my view that the AAPA statement is notable.

Your comment about Neisser et. al. is neither here nor there. It too is a significant view from a notable source. That is all that matters. "This fact seems untenable ..." - you want a source? Dude! Nesser et. al. is the source!! Well, you have questions about it? Go call up Neisser then - I am not stopping you! Maybe he will give you another reference. In the meantime we have significant views from notable sources, time to move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My objection is to using these questionable documents as fundamental points of reference. Can we agree that this is inappropriate? Incidentally Witherspoon confirms Edwards as far as I know. mikemikev (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This might be a simplistic enough decision to subject to a straw poll (should we use the AAPA definition: yes/no?). would that be helpful here? --Ludwigs2 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Slrubenstein should agree that using the 2009 AAPA statement as a principle reference point for writing the R&I article is unacceptable, since it contains an unproven and highly suspect genetic statement, which invalidates the discipline of R&I studies. I for one would be prepared to accept it as a POV. If he can reference the scholar responsible for the statement, that would be helpful. mikemikev (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the AAPA statements on biological aspects of race. Articles that appear in the AAPA are generally "hawkish" on "racial" differences. After all the association's main goal is the study of anatomical differences in human populations. I therfore find it interesting that their statement doesn't differ significantly from statements of other associations. It is my opinion that there is a "mainstream" view on race and biology. There are certain themes that are consistently expressed in the various associations, and also by many other scholars in the field. So far it seems that Mikemikev believes that their statements are all biased. I don't think there is much else that can be done regarding these allegations of bias.

Wapondaponda (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider Mikimikev's 09:47, 14 February 2010 statement to be absured on its face. Not only do I reject it, I want to go on the record that I view it is a sign that he not only does not wish to work towards a mediation of any disputes (Is he even a party to the mediation?); I now see him merely as wishing to disrupt this mediation process. The AAPA is an association of virtually all the majore scientists researching human beings as a biological organism. They are real scholars, with credentials - what credentials does Mikemikev have, that enables him to dicmiss such a well-researched, carefully cafted, and authoritative document written and endorsed by the top scientists in the field? Moreover, Wikipedia is founded on the principle that editors do not insert their own points of view we rely instead on significant views from reliable sources. The AAPA is clearly a notable source containing significant views and it is a disgrace that Mikemikev would use this as an opprtunity to force in his own POV. Mikemikev is now revelaed to be a disruptie editor who does not understand biological science, and who does not respect Wiipedia policies. I see no point in feeding this troll and will no longer respond to his disruptive comments.

I think Muntuandi for his cogent and judicious response. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I feel I have made a valid point. I believe you cannot address it so you are resorting to ad hominem. I strongly resent and deny your allegations.

I am genuinely concerned with what I believe to be inaccuracy being put into wikipedia.

My credentials do not affect my point. I have no desire or obligation to provide personal information. If I am unversed in these issues you will be able to address my points rather than my credentials, unless of course it is you who is unversed in genetics.

Please name some of these major scientists who endorse this AAPA statement. mikemikev (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Mikemike: I've left a message on your talk page. you need to formally sign into the mediation on the main mediation page before you make any further comments.

I have to say, however, that you are making some fairly unreasonable claims here. the AAPA statement is published in a reliable academic journal, and so it can be taken as a reasonably well-supported, broadly accepted scientific viewpoint. trying to boil it down to individual scientists serves no practical purpose. you are welcome to present other scientific viewpoints that oppose the AAPA perspective, and those will be used to balance the material in the article appropriately, but you cannot unilaterally assert that the AAPA perspective is wrong without referencing some equally noteworthy scientific claim. can you provide a source that opposes or balances the AAPA statement? --Ludwigs2 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that trying to rewrite race and genetics as part of this article is going to be worthwhile. The relavant question for this article is much more narrow. Consider what Nisbett wrote on this:

Some laypeople I know -- and some scientists as well -- believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between the races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen -- either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups (Nisbett, 2009, p. 94).

That captures most of what's relevant: some people think there's something to be known a priori about the cause of group differences and some think that it's an open empirical question. --DJ (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, DJ, that may actually be a way out of this morass. would it work just to make a brief discussion (a paragraph or so) outlining the genetic v. sociological issues with respect to in intelligence in the literature, note that there's no current scientific conclusion on the matter, and then link over to the race and genetics page? we might be able to put this entire discussion to bed if that would work for everyone. --Ludwigs2 04:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I signed up. If my contribution is not considered useful here and a significant number of editors let me know now I will happily bow out with apologies.

I think the quote DJ provided really settles this issue. Nisbett thinks groups (specifically black and white) can possibly have genetic intelligence differences. The quote I provided from the AAPA says they cannot in any useful sense. I would like to make it clear that I am not saying we should discard the AAPA statement. My objection is entirely and only to using it a main point of reference or an accepted statement of current scientific consensus, because it is not. It is a point of view, and should be treated as such.

I think Ludwig's idea of writing a paragraph on the fact that genetics has no evidence either way and linking to 'race and genetics' is a perfect solution. mikemikev (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where in the AAPA statement does it say that groups cannot have genetic intelligence differences? I'm not seeing it. --Ludwigs2 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m not seeing it either. The paper says “Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting.” As far as I can tell, that’s referring to there not being any biological justification for systems like racial segregation, but I think mikemikev might be misreading this part to be in reference to intelligence.

DJ’s suggestion is pretty similar to what Varoon Arya suggested in the WP:FRINGE discussion, which I quoted on your userpage, so I obviously agree with it. However, I would suggest mentioning that there is a fair amount of consensus that (socially-defined) races can differ in the distribution of biological traits in general. There does not appear to be a consensus about this being possible for IQ per se, because that involves certain other assumptions that not everyone agrees on. (Do IQ tests measure anything meaningful? Is IQ influenced by genes?) If we’re going to be using the APA statement as a guide, though, then we’ll be writing the article under the assumption that the answer to the last two questions is yes, which would mean that whether this is the case for IQ s an empirical question that same as Nisbett is suggesting. Even though the APA does not think the hereditarian hypothesis about race and intelligence is well-supported, they obviously think it’s enough of a possibility to be worthy of further research. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

They jump to the conclusion about 'typical representatives', a genetic claim. The jump is from "very commonly deviates from the average". Trait combinations will often deviate from the average (always for complex traits like IQ), the question is how much and whether they correlate for groups. The implication is that the deviation in trait combinations (with genetic causes) is so large from individual to individual as to be uncorrelated and uninformative, which is unsubstantiated. This is my interpretation anyway, the paragraph is so packed with non sequitar and vagueness as to almost defy analysis.

Occams quote was another one I considered questionable. "A given social setting"? Like a 100m race or a maths test? Unsubstantiated. mikemikev (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

When you’re reading something like this paper, I think it’s important to keep in mind the typical meanings that phrases like these have acquired in the context of discussing race. They aren’t necessarily the same meanings that these phrases would have in a different context. In discussions about race, “social setting” refers to something much more general than any specific task. It means basically an entire society, and what I think this paper is saying is that there’s no biological reason to assume that black people are unable to function in “white society”. (Or the same for any other two races.)

In this context, “typical representatives” usually refers to a 19th-century idea that has nothing to do with genetics. The idea back then was that each race could be defined as an ideal set of characteristics, to which everyone who was a “pure” member of this race would conform, kind of like how a roughly spherical object could be described as being either more or less close to a perfect sphere. I assume you’re aware that genetics doesn’t support this idea. I agree it would be nice if the AAPA could have been clearer about what ideas they’re rejecting in their statement, but to someone who’s familiar with this topic it isn’t too difficult to figure out what they’re talking about. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, I think this is part of the problem. we are putting way too much effort into trying to 'interpret' things, and not enough into trying to 'balance' them with other sources. I'm taking it, mike, that you accept this source about 95%, but you are quibbling of a fairly esoteric interpretation. If that's true, I think it's time we accept this source (even though it's not perfect) and move on. if you have a valid source that makes the critique that you are making, we can include that for balance when we get to the writing stage, but I don't want to bog this conversation down any further with esoteric quibbles. can you agree to that? --Ludwigs2 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see this statement as too vague to be useful. I don't see which parts are relevant to the article. I would be grateful if one of the advocats of using this could explain which parts of the statement are relevant to the article. mikemikev (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we close this as "This article will not use the 2009 AAPA statement on race as a reference point for the biological meaning of race. Race will be however it's defined by the R&I scholar in question." (or however you want to word it). mikemikev (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia says we should include all significant views from reliable sources. This is a significant view from a reliable source. If wae want to know what is the mainstream view among scientists, this is a very important document as it represents almost all scholars conducing research on human population genetics and other aspects of humans as biological organism. Does Mikemikev have a bettr source for mainstream views? What exactly are the grounds or Mikemikev rejecting this document? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

where are we on this discussion point? I though we were close to resolved on it, and I'm not sure how much it overlaps other points that we have resolved. opinions? --Ludwigs2 02:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev’s point, which nobody attempted to dispute for around three days after he made it, is that the AAPA article does not discuss anything about the IQ difference. Some of what it discusses might be relevant to the Race and genetics article, but nobody seemed able to justify how it’s relevant to Race and intelligence. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The question is not whether it's significant or reliable, but whether it's relevant. About the most relevant sentence I could find is: "The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture." Note how they use the word 'appear'. So it's an open question, and it's POV. So we're back to "there is currently no established genetic link between race and intelligence". This is all the relevance the AAPA statement has to the article. mikemikev (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we close this as "This article will not use the 2009 AAPA or the 1996 AAA statements on race as reference points for the biological meaning of race. Race will be however it's defined by the R&I scholar in question." mikemikev (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? You are mixing apples and oranges. Of course for any source in question we use that source's definition of race. That is not what "point of reference" means. Our NPOV policy requires us to distinguish between majority, minority, mainstream, and fringe views. To do that we need a point of reference. I think that the official positions of the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (especially the latter) are the most reliable and significant points of reference for gaging this. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You've had 12 days to explain which parts of the statement are applicable and how. You haven't. You're just repeating yourself. If we are going to use these statements you need to justify it, instead of just saying "we need to use these statements" again and again. These statements make vague claims about "culture", and say nothing about genetic IQ differences. Or am I missing something? mikemikev (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I take a few days off and what happens? look, the AAPA and AAA are (so far as I can tell) perfectly valid and noteworthy sources on this issue. What we have here is not a question of inclusion/exclusion, but rather a question of balance. If you're asking me to make the decision, I would say that we include these sources, and then we can save all this wrangling over how best to present them neutrally in the article.

I want everyone to remember that we have a field here that Kuhn would have called pre-paradigmatic - there is no single wholly accepted viewpoint, but rather an assortment of viewpoints still vying for ascendency. Nothing being presented by reliable sources should be excluded, per crystal ball; it's more a question of balancing things to prevent undue prominence. does that resolve the issue? --Ludwigs2 17:30, 5 March 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)

You just said "no one claims to have identified genes for intelligence", and no editor ever wrote otherwise. So why add a disclaimer about something which, literally, no one in the world asserts as being true? TechnoFaye Kane 03:36, 15 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 Frankenstein-like surgery in the delivery room, would you want that statement 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 an 80 IQ score.

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 gedanken experiment, 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)\

Not if you correct for the fact that Hostess Twinkies also cause extra toes by eliminating the twinkie-eaters and the difference STILL exists.03:47, 15 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)

{{archive bottom}}

Why, since that's what we're talking about? Unbiased, duplicated IQ tests show that whites are, on average, stupider than Asians. SO WHAT?? I'm a white woman, but that doesn't make most white people as smart as Asians. I am all-too aware that non-austics take (literally) everything personally, but isn't it little extreme to take offense at something said not of you, but of other people who look vaguely like you?

It's surreal to hear: "Blacks' 6% smaller brains is unrelated to their testing as retarded". Would you care to go on Oprah's show and say "most black people have smaller brains because most black women drink heavily"? If not, it's cowardly to say it anonymously in Wikipedia. My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied by scientistseven if it is true. (Gould citation on request). TechnoFaye Kane 03:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FRINGE Debate

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

---

RESOLVED AS:
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.

--Ludwigs2 17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended content moved to Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence/Archive_3#The_WP:FRINGE_Debate

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.

Mediation Meta

Slrubenstein suggested changing: “All current research in race is based in SIRE information” to: “All current research on race in relation to IQ scores is based in SIRE information”. Basically, he's saying "Race can be biological when we talk about sickle-cell anemia, or anything but IQ. But when we talk about intelligence, there are no races--and I want this stated as a fact in Wikipedia". This illustrates the obvious bias of a group of editors here who are attempting to railroad this kind of nonsense through on their own. Captain Occam (who did a good job) quit as moderator due to the lack of consensus here, and now the POV group includes the moderator. Mikev made the manifestly reasonable statement:

"Using the 2009 AAPA statement as a principle reference point for writing the R&I article is unacceptable, since it contains an unproven and highly suspect genetic statement, which invalidates the discipline of R&I studies. I for one would be prepared to accept it as a POV. If he can reference the scholar responsible for the statement, that would be helpful."

He was very rudely attacked:

"[That's] absurd on its face. Not only do I reject it, ...it is a sign that Mikemikev not only does not wish to work towards a mediation, ...but merely wishes to disrupt this mediation process.... Mikemikev would use this as an opportunity to force in his own POV. Mikemikev... is a disruptive editor who... does not respect Wikipedia policies. I see no point in feeding this troll"

He then cited a Wikipedia policy which the punishment for breaking is wikipedia capital punishment: being banned from editing.

If this had been a physical confrontation on the street I would have called the police. But the "police" here are now on the take, so to speak. Mikev replied very politely:

"I feel I have made a valid point. I believe you cannot address it, so you are resorting to ad hominem."

The moderator's response to the ugly assault and polite response was NOT to berate the attacker or even censure him, but to call mikev's manifestly reasonable statements "unreasonable claims" and telling mikev, who has been part of this for weeks, [paraphrasing]: "Now get the hell out of here and don't come back until you've officially joined the conversation". I was shocked. I'm genuinely surprised that these editors would perform such mafia-like strongarming in a context which is being recorded and publicly available.

If they're not attacked outright or declared irrelevant, anyone pointing out why the biased position is nonsense is completely ignored, as if the objection had never been raised. For example, Mikev objected to the inclusion of an AAPA statement (which the biased editors were misrepresenting as being supportive of their position). He said: "I would be grateful if one of the advocates of using this could explain which parts of the statement are relevant to the article." his request went unanswered, the moderator having declared this kind of talk "exotic quibble". The AAPA statement will go in Wikipedia along with the implication: "The AAPA says that race is not biological", something their carefully-worded list of (true) statements did NOT say. I take particular offense at this because my first major was physical anthropology, and had I not eventually found cultural anthropology boring, I would be a member of AAPA now and signed that statement myself.

It's like trying to talk to "tea-party" wingnuts at a political website. It's like trying to talk to the Borg.

Look, NO one says that the universally-accepted IQ score gap is totally genetic in origin. The position of the POV-pushing editors is that NONE of the IQ difference is genetic, because they falsely (and insultingly) characterize that as a statement that (and I quote) "black people are inferior".

I am on the edge of saying "f*ck this", abandoning the article to the PC propagandists and coming back when scientists have smoking-gun proof that IQ is even partly genetic. My problem is: scientists have already DONE that. A summary of the research --probably over a thousand studies--was published by the prestigious APA in 2002(?). I am not sure of the year because the link to the most important document in this matter--which supports the genetic position--is broken. I replaced it with one that works weeks ago, but I see now that someone changed it back to a broken link. Given the above, I suppose I should not be surprised that these went unchallenged by the moderator:

• [Our] statements are POV. Well, so what? I mean, is not everything in Wikipedia a point of view?", and

• "To say there are two sides to the debate is itself a point of view."

And there's so much more of this that I'm tired of going back to the other Firefox tab, finding the next instance, then describing it here. To do so would be essentially to post an annotated copy of the entire discussion, and I have RL responsibilities. But I missed ONE day here, and when I came back, I discovered the decisions which "we" had supposedly made, and which I and others objected to. These decisions declare, in a nutshell, that as long as it's not mathematically impossible that the R/I correlation isn't biological, even the most conclusive, published psychometric research showing it is should either be minimized, described as "fringe science", or entirely replaced with statements of "race doesn't exist" by groups like the ASA, who are not even tangentially involved with DNA or biology.

I may very well be mistaken and I hope I am, but it seems more likely to me that this effort is being organized by a college club, a fraternity, or a political organization rather than that so many well-meaning Wikipedia editors are actually willing to tell lies in public about a scientific topic and back them up with thuggery.

This post, like many others objecting to the political corruption of this article, will probably be ignored. Certainly, the blatant, obvious bias will continue. However I may receive a polite version of "F*ck you, you're outvoted", a threat from the demonstrably biased moderator to ban me if I point out their next POV pontification, or actually ban me. So I'm putting this in the record for reference, should a review of this farce be done by an unbiased observer after everyone objecting to it has been thrown out. I see my role here now, not as an advocate for the objective presentation of repeatedly-proven facts, because those facts are routinely declared irrelevant. I am now merely documenting the shameful bias of this make-believe mediation. TechnoFaye Kane 04:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your frankness. But don't be so hard on Ludwig. He's doing a difficult job and I have confidence in him. As for the AAPA statement, if editors cannot justify it's use as a benchmark statement on race with regard to R&I, I think it will be safe to assume we do not use it. The fact that it is considered 'absured' (sic) to ask this is not a valid counter argument, and I believe Ludwig will appreciate this. mikemikev (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TechnoFaye is twisting my words in her first paragraph. I meant precisely what I wrote. What I wrote means what it says. It does not mean what TechnoFaye reads into it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Faye is misrepresenting everyone here, but I don't think it's intended to be malicious - I'm seeing this as a bit of exaggeration due to venting. C'mon faye - none of this is supportable by actual diffs.

But since the issue has been raised, let me lay out my perspective exactly as I (currently) see it, so that anyone can evaluate my potential biases on their own. Here's what I know/think:

• To my understanding, there is a statistically significant difference in IQ scores between races; races in such research almost universally being defined by SIRE methods
• To my understanding, there is a scientific debate about the cause of this difference: is it based in culture? based in family environment? inherited individually as a genetic characteristic from parents? inherited as a genetic characteristic from groups? some combination of these?
  • To my understanding, the 'group genetic' approach is a significant but relatively small part of the research.
• To my understanding, there is scientific evidence that intelligence is at least partly inherited, but no conclusive evidence (as of yet) about what particular genes influence it.
• To my understanding, there is research that links SIRE to clusters of genes, but these are genes that were preselected to be indicators of race, and it is unknown whether any of them influence intelligence

Now, any or all of those points may be incorrect (and I welcome being enlightened, since I think most of you are currently closer to the material than I am). However, given the above, I have worries about engaging in synthesis. It may be natural to take the last two points and combine them to say that genes which influence intelligence are part of he cluster of genes that distinguish races, but I know of no research in the literature that actually demonstrates that. As mediator I am not interested in advocating for or against points that are present in the literature on the subject (in fact, I will insist that such get balanced properly), but as mediator I cannot allow synthesis by wikipedia editors to confuse the issue endlessly. I've been waiting this long to try to try to get some clarity on whether this is in fact synthesis of published materials; I'm still not 100% on that point, but I am heavily leaning towards the belief that it is synthesis, and if I make that decision I will simply close the discussion as resolved per policy, and we will move on. ok?

so, I've been studiously avoiding keeping track of who is on what side in this discussion, so I don't know who (aside from Faye and Mike) would argue for this point, but I would like to see some evidence that this entire debate is not simply argument from synthesis. Please be brief, to the point, and cite material that I can see for myself. --Ludwigs2 17:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks generally correct. The only thing I would add as a clarifying bullet is that

• There is direct and indirect evidence that environment affects intelligence, but only indirect evidence that genes do.

That is to say that the evidence for environmental effects on intelligence has been experimentally verified, but this is not the case with genetic effects. A.Prock 18:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this summary on genetic aspects of R&I (except for 'inheriting genetics from groups', what's that?). As you have put it, it is clear that intelligence genes have not been proven to differ between races, so it's not synthesis. If we then give adequate treatment to the environmental and hereditarian hypotheses, it will definitely not be synthesis, just a necessary statement of the facts. mikemikev (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig said: "There is research that links SIRE to clusters of genes"

Will you now stop demanding proof that SIRE is genetic? You already acknowledged somewhere in this War-and-Peace-length discussion that it (SIRE) correlates with low IQ scores. Or will you introduce more irrelevant, deliberately-distractive red-herrings like "Yes, but the sickle-cell gene hasn't been proven to affect intelligence".

Sickle-cell anemia is genetic and universally accepted as occurring almost exclusively in people who describe themselves as "Of Sub-Saharan African descent" [i.e., SIRE]. Would you require still more citation than that to say "SIRE can be used as a proxy for some specific DNA sequence?" If so, how is that different from saying that there IS biological (genetic) race--without even bringing intelligence into it at all?

Note that I am not asking if you can find someone's article giving a contrary opinion about genetic race. The question is: does the extremely strong correlation of SIRE with a genetic disease imply that genetic race exists, or do you call this statement "synthesis"?

> There is research that links SIRE to clusters of genes [which]... were preselected to be indicators of race.

So SIRE has a physical basis in genes that are indicators of race. You'll now stop saying that it hasn't been proven, right? We agree that SIRE can be used to mean "genetic race". Or will you continue insisting that you've never seen anything authoritative saying so, even though whole point of the study was to establish that, and you yourself just said it did?

> and it is unknown whether any of [the genes correlated with SIRE] influence intelligence

Those specific genes don't HAVE to be proven to influence intelligence! They only need to correlate with intelligence for us to say so. A possible explanation could be that there is some other gene affecting intelligence. But if there is, it occurs only with the SIRE-linked gene because SIRE is very strongly correlated with IQ score. Okay? GOD!

In what I can only attribute to a slip up in your obfuscation, you admitted both that SIRE is very strongly linked to low IQ scores and has been proven to be genetic. That's all that integrity requires we say. If you'll agree to put what you already acknowledge as true in Wikipedia, maybe we can end this runaround and publish the article. TechnoFaye Kane 15:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of genetic intelligence research details

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

---

resolved at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#The_99.86.25_correlation_number

Above Slruenstein writes:

If I am right, the debate here is thus: one side says, since the psychology article concluded that there is no or not yet evidence that these loci correlate with race, it means that this issue was discussed in a psychology article, which means that it is relevant to accounts of discussions of psychological research on race and IQ, even if all we say is that the conclusion was there is no conclusive evidence. The other side says, since the conclusion was there is no conclusive evidence for a link, it is therefore not relevant to discussions of race and intelligence, therefore not relevant to the article.

We seem to have gotten stuck on some of the particulars of this issue (preliminary gene level results), and I don't think we've really addressed the topic at the broad level. I for one am firmly in the summary side. That's not to say that gene level details shouldn't be in the article. Rather, they should be included when a reasonable summary of the Genetics of intelligence article warrants it. It would be useful for those interested including these details (I'm thinking of Captain Occam in particular) to discuss where they sit on the broad level, and whether summarizing Genetics of intelligence is a valid approach. Additionally, if they think gene level details should be included, an explanation of the rationale might move the mediation forward. A.Prock 17:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What "psychology article concluded that there is no evidence that these loci correlate with race"? TechnoFaye Kane 15:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Faye: I recognize that this seems obvious to you, but we don't add things to wikipedia because they are obvious to editors, we add things to wikipedia because they are present in reliable sources. Correlation does not equal causation: even a perfect correlation between two variables does not tell us anything about what 'causes' the perfect correlation. That requires extra foundational research which (in this case) simply doesn't exist. Unless you know something I don't know? What you seem to be asking is that we engage in synthesis from published materials, which is against wikipedia policy. --Ludwigs2 16:32, 21 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 report on the hijacking of this mediation by a group of biased editors

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is only to document the obvious bias of the new moderator and his gang for a future challenge of the validity of the scientifically-laughable propaganda he and his friends intend to force onto wikipedia. It may also be useful to a 23rd-century graduate student reasearching her dissertation: "Self-Delusion and Science in Uncivilized Times". I don't expect a reply--at least, not one that adresses my objections. So, to whom it may concern: I asked the moderator several specific questions illustrating the logical absurdity and contradictions inherent in his justification for suppressing legitimate peer-reviewed research and substituting doubletalk. For example, ludwig said "I understand there is research that links SIRE to clusters of genes, but...", and I asked him if he would now promise not to say that no genetic link with SIRE has been shown. He answered NONE of these very relevant questions. It can reasonably inferred that this is because either he hasn't visited this page in five days, or because he's painted himself into a logic corner--to reply, he'd have to do the logical equivalent of proving that 2+2=5. In other contexts, they call this "checkmate". Had this been done by any other editor, the moderator would step in and request responses to my objections and answers to my questions. But in the present case, it is the moderator himself who ignored my concerns--tending to illustrate the bias and cynical disingenuity of the PC pablum about to be added to Wikipedia. I then asked to see the source of what appears to be a political statement masquerading as a scientific one. I asked: "What psychology article concluded that there is no evidence that these loci correlate with race?" But he ignored that question too. What he DID do was insert more non-sequitor doubletalk, to wit: Faye, I recognize that this seems obvious to you, but we don't add things to wikipedia because they are obvious to editors, ...except that none of my objections were that something is "obvious". In fact, that word does not appear in my post. we add things to wikipedia because they are present in reliable sources. ...Which is exactly what I am (or was) trying to make happen, until I "wised up" and realized just what was actually going on here. For example, he said that correlation does not imply causation. I replied:

Those specific [race] genes don't HAVE to be proven to influence intelligence! They only need to CORRELATE with intelligence for us to say so.

The cave men just had to notice that pregnancy only happens after f*cking. They don't need to understand estrogen hydrolysis to infer that the latter is probably the cause of the former.

But his response was to repeat the statement I had just pointed out was a non-sequitor:

Correlation does not equal causation: even a perfect correlation between two variables does not tell us anything about what 'causes' the perfect correlation.

That is to say, my objection was not addressed.

Another question I'd like an answer to:

Give an example of this "synthesys" you say is taking place, wherein two unrelated facts are juxtaposed to fallsely imply that the facts ARE related. And don't say "Every6 time ice cream consumption in America rises, the cholera mortality rate rises on an identical curve [because they both happen in the summer]" Give an example of synthesis from this mediation. I have to understand what it is so I can make sure not to do it.

Now, with characteristic childlike gullibility, I will assume that this is an honest discussion instead of the POV charade we all know it to be, and reply to "correlation does not equal causation" again:

a) So what?

b) No, but who said it was?

c) That's not good enough a reason to suppress publication of strong correllations.

d) No, but correllation is the smoke to the fire of certainty. It tells scientists where to look for the smoking gun

One more question:

Do you intend to tell our curious readers (assuming proper citations):

On average, people calling themselves "African-American" have an average IQ of 80, which is borderline retarded. This may be due to their brains being, on average, 6% smaller than the brains of people reporting themselves as "Asian". This corresponds to a brain volume difference of about one-quarter of a kitchen measuring cup and [x] trillion neural synapses.

I think this should go at the very top, in the summary, because it's extremely relevant to the question this article addresses, which is "why do some races appear to be either more or less intelligent than other races"?

If you elect not to present this true and uncontested information, please tell me the untrue or contested part.

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because if you don't, and instead ignore this question (and the others in my previous post) I shall assume you have no objection to my adding it to the top of whatever "sanitized" version you eventually come up with. In particular, you cannot validly say "this was resolved in mediation which she was part of; ban her for being disruptive". In short, I expect that this shameful outrage will continue until an "official" article on R/I is published containing statements by the unqualified, (e.g. ASA), contradictions of proven facts, omission of conclusive but inconvienient facts for trivial, nonsensical or no reason, and mischaracterization of positions contrary to the Mandatory Belief which is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. TechnoFaye Kane 13:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Faye, I am trying to work with you, but my hands are tied here. you have not presented research that demonstrates the point you're trying to make. let's look at all your points:

• On average, people calling themselves "African-American" have an average IQ of 80 (that would be (SIRE -'calling themselves' = self-report, I assume)
• On average, people calling themselves "African-American" have a brain size 6% smaller than the brains of people reporting themselves as "Asian"

there are two problems with this material that you have failed to address - address them, and we can include them:

1. You have not provided sources for either of these claims. I don't know whether they are true or false, myself, but I have not yet seen a reliable source that makes these claims.
2. Granting that there are sources for both, the statement that these two claims are related is unsupportable. there has been a lot of research into the relationship of brain volume and IQ, and as I understand it (which I may not). can you show me something in sources that says the issue has been resolved?

The basic fact of wikipedia is that we don't publish material because we think it's 'true'; we publish material that reliable sources have come to accept. I certainly understand what you're saying, and I (personally) have no idea whether it is right or wrong. all I want to see here is what experts in the field are saying, and they are not saying what you're saying here.

I'm archiving the more 'rant-like' portions of your post. please try to remain civil, no matter how upset you are. --Ludwigs2 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Parallel case: the American Sociological Association says liberals average 11 IQ points smarter than conservatives

I've been facing incessant reversion at Conservativism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States over a sentence I've tried to add:

According to the ASA, "Add Health" data found an average IQ of 106 for adolescents identifying as "very liberal", versus IQ of 95 for calling themselves "very conservative".

After some unusual excuses (an American Sociological Association press release isn't good enough; they need to go over the full text of the primary paper) one editor got to the meat of the matter

(Undid revision 346455316 by Wnt (talk) sigh even if it's true it's way too POV for wikipedia, at this current time anyway....)[9]

Specifically referencing this article as a precedent.[10]

This is the second study reporting such a correlation.[11]

I haven't edited Race and intelligence, but I hope this parallel situation will inform the mediators. Wnt (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Have you considered epigenetics? Trofim Lysenko had a point:[12] In near future your gap should be gone.

I think the press releases are indeed very bad sources. What we need to know is the context (most of our policies point out that context is essential to presenting a POV accurately withou violating NOR). Is the ASA simply reporting a research finding and saying "we don't know why?" Or are they using this as a way to say smart people become liberals? Or are they saying liberals have access to better education i.e. this is mediated by class? Or are they making fun of people use IQ data in relation to race? Wikipedia SHOULD be adding "POV" material, that is basic NPOV. But without knowing the context, you can't possibly be portraying the POV in question accurately. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How much hereditarian?

Wapondaponda writes "However I haven't seen any progress on the core problem, which is how much of the hereditarian hypothesis would be included in the article." I agree that this is the core problem. I would be interested to know what other editors think is the answer. David.Kane (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been established that hereditarianism isn't fringe but minority, that's progress. I guess as long as environmentalism gets more treatment than hereditarianism, but hereditarianism gets a fair chunk, we're in the right ball park. mikemikev (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I do feel that there is a rush to write an article when a lot has not been resolved. In addition to the space for the hereditarian hypothesis, a few other issues remain unresolved. There were concerns that the current article is too long. So we would need to agree on an appropriate article length. It might also be a good idea to decide on the section headings. The proposal of a disambiguation page, which was first suggested by Slrubenstein and Aprock, has been forgotten, though I still believe it is a viable proposal. This, because it addresses the space for the hereditarian hypothesis and the size issue as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify mikemikev's comment, hereditarian research isn't fringe. It's the conclusions of some of the more oft cited researchers which are fringe. A.Prock 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, please refrain from 'clarifying' my comments. If you want clarification you can ask. The hereditarian conclusions are a significant minority in the psychology/behavioural genetics community. The 'mainstream' is: "I don't know". Environmentalism is another minority. This has been resolved by Aryaman, don't try to question resolved points. mikemikev (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was clarifying with respect to the consensus that the mediation formed. Sorry that I didn't make that clear. Specifically, I should have written

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.

A.Prock 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, A.Prock. Distinguishing between "research" and "conclusions" indeed brings clarifity to Mikemikev's comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Slrubenstein. More obstinate nitpicking will indeed drag this mediation on for several more months. mikemikev (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediator, could you review this attempt to rehash a resolved issue. mikemikev (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the faintest idea what you're arguing about. this seems very straight-forward:

1. we've acknowledged that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe
2. we've acknowledged that the hereditarian hypothesis is not the majority opinion

the rest is balancing. as we write, we just need to take care that the research on the hereditarian stuff doesn't turn into an ever-expanding mass that dominates the article. that may mean being selective about what we include, or excluding the more fringish hereditarian positions, or at extreme need creating a content fork that deals specifically with the hereditarian view. but these are all points that are undecidable until we start writing and revising. I see this debate as a non-starter. --Ludwigs2 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Contributing to this topic?

Hello

I was asked by a user here about the possibility of contributing to this wiki topic. I have zero experience editing wiki, so if this is the wrong place to discuss the issue, my apologies.

My name is Bryan Pesta. I have 5 articles on intelligence; one specifically on race and IQ. While I do think I am qualified to discuss this stuff, I have no expertise nor interest in the genetics of race. I see most of the discussion here seems to hinge on this.

My personal take is that self-reports of race have scientific "baggage" but are indeed a good proxy for the biology of race (whatever that is). I also believe we can measure things before we have a complete definition of what exactly we're measuring. I often see people argue that unless we can define race with 100% certainty as a biological / genetic construct, then the construct has no scientific merit. In my opinion, that's stupid.

Since people can't be randomly assigned to races, and since social-cultural baggage is attached to the term, the burden of proof (initially) is one those who claim biological race is predictive. I think we now have decades of research showing this burden's been met (i.e., controlling for factor x variables in the environment-- gobs of them-- does not remove the race difference. And, the difference maps on to basic brain and mental processes...).

So, my opinion is that the burden's now on those who claim race is 100% cultural or social. Explain how these data are possible.

I link below to my IQ articles. I don't have lots of time to devote to debating this back and forth here, but if you think I can make a contribution, I would be willing to give it a shot (again depending on time factors and how much work this would be).

Thanks.

http://facultyprofile.csuohio.edu/csufacultyprofile/publications.cfm?FacultyID=B_PESTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.173.106 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok - you've been introduced above, so feel free to pitch in to the discussion where you see fit. let me know if you need technical help or guidance. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wide World of Wiki, Mr. Pesta -- your 2008 article is both interesting and relevant to this discussion!

But you should know that we in this community end our contributions to discussions with four tilde-characters (below the Esc key). This causes our login name to be appended instead of a meaningless IP address. That way, everyone can keep track of who said what.

Say, if Dr. Pesta quotes his own academic articles, is that "original research"? I asked someone years ago if Niel Armstrong could contribute to the Aopollo 11 article and the guy who answered me said no. Is there an official policy on this? TechnoFaye Kane 09:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr.Pesta cannot add her own views to the article; that would violate NOR. However, if Dr. Pesta has published views in a reliable source (as is certainly the case with the articles she has published) she can most definitely add them to the article without violating NOR. If Neil Armstrong were to add his own views or account of Apollo 11 or the Apollo program to an article, he would be violating NOR. IF however he has published his views in a reliable source, or has ben quoted in a reliable source (e.g. an interview in a major newspaper or magazine) he may add that material, properly cited, without violating NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks techno faye! Btw, I obviously don't have a clue with regard to editing wiki so if I'm not supposed to be posting here, I apologize. I also posted a few paragraphs two days ago, but it must not have gone through.

The gist was without a more narrow focus, I don't see you all completing this wiki. One doesn't need a 100% precise genetic definition or race (nor IQ) to review the large literature on self-reported race and IQ scores. Enough variables now have been statistically controlled to make some tentative conclusions. I think people set the bar too high in this area (obviously, the topic is emotional, but at base it is no different from any other topic in terms of evidence needed. For example, evidence for stereotype threat if gobs more suspect than is evidence for race differences on IQ scores).

99.65.173.106 (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing (sorry, IF should be IS in my last sentence above):

My opinion is that links to the genetics of race and links to IQ scores as a proxy for g could be featured in the stub (?) here. Disclaimers that neither genetic-race nor IQ can be defined with 100% precision (depending on what level of reductionism one requires) could go in this stub. A disclaimer that this is not necessary to scientifically study both topics should then be added as well.

I also think that expertise is not a dichotomy but a continuum. One might have Read Mismeasure, or took an undergrad class in psychometrics, or got a graduate degree in the area, or publishes a bit in the best journals in the field, or publishes LOTS in the best journals.

Even journals vary in quality and relevance to the field. I hope that users here would agree that Intelligence is the premiere journal in the field and articles therein should get much consideration for citation here.

Some things I think the field "knows":

1. Race is indeed a biological construct, QED. It causes changes in skin color across humans and some other "stereotypical" physical differences across race. I'm ok with defining race, for now, as skin color and all (biologically) that correlates with it. In fact, let the geneticists figure it out in a different stub (I personally have little interest in the genetics of race).

2a. Race is not a dichotomy (not black and white...). It's rather a continuum. Demanding that a line be drawn in the sand that discretely separates white from black (e.g.) is unfair / too high a burden, especially if no such line exists (it's the fuzzy categories idea).

2b. I think the handedness is a perfect analogy. There is no clear distinction between left and right handed. It's a continuum. Some people (me) are wholly left handed and can't do anything well right handed. Others lean moreso to the left; some are ambidextrous, and the continuum continues for right handedness. There are even scales that measure handedness on a continuum. Same applies to race (dunno how many arguments I've been in where someone shows me a mixed race person and demands that I classify him as black or white. Failure to do so, in their mind, proves that races don't exist). Do left handers and right handers not exist because we can search the internet and find someone truly ambidextrous?

3a. No environmental manipulation, nor no study that controls (via regression or multiple regression) environmental factors explains the gap. There's so much of the research that the "weakest" conclusion is: No simple environmental factor(s) explain the gap. A stronger conclusion appeals to genes. I'm not there yet personally. I think the difference is biological (faster, more efficient brains ON AVERAGE across race groups). I'm not convinced this can't be environmental (some multiple regression yet to be done including pre-natal development, nutrition levels and other stuff might remove the gap). On the other hand, I'm not sure what the next research project is for people who claim it's 100% environmental.

4a. Realize that categorization forms a heirarchy. Superordinate level (human) Basic level (race) sub-ordinate (korean, japanese).

Too many people in my past point to some sub-ordinate category, point out problems in classification, and suggest that that creates problems for the basic-level category. It does not.

5. Utility: This is a poor argument. The increase in human well-being that could come from solving this problem is vast. Just looking a simple z score analysis proves this. The over or under representation of individuals in groups where the mean difference is 1 standard deviation is vast. At the aggregate level, race differences on IQ provide a parsimonious explanation (not saying it's the correct explanation-- more data are needed) for the massive race inequality experienced in most every country. This stuff is not trivial, whatever the explanation. I believe that no other problem (perhaps global warming) would have a higher ROI, were we to invest money in figuring it out and solving it. Good luck there (see last point).

Last point. True experts in the field are being demeaned, defamed and marginalized. This is important and should be mentioned. There are perhaps many motives to study race and IQ. Not all of them are to show the white man is the shits. Not all of them are racist. To the extent I do another race and iq study, it will be focused on using science to predict/control/understand something in the interest of increasing human well-being.

Sorry for any typos-- getting late here

99.65.173.106 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr. Pesta, and thanks for offering us your input here. (This is Microraptor/Tetrapteryx, whom you’ve talked to on AIM.) Learning the proper format for editing Wikipedia is definitely worth doing eventually, but even before you’ve acquired these skills your advice is still valuable to us.

One thing I’d recommend doing as soon as it’s convenient, though, is registering an account here and posting while logged into it. It’s not against Wikipedia’s rules to post anonymously, but registering and logging in is still considered by a lot of people here to be a matter of common courtesy. The create account / login link should be at the top right of most of the pages here. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Pesta, I read through your article on race and IQ. One thing I found interesting was that, though the B/W means for inspection time differed very significantly, the black standard deviation was at least 2.5 times larger than the white standard deviation. The lower bound of the black standard deviation is below the lower bound of the white standard deviation. The white standard deviation can effectively be nested in the black standard deviation. My understanding of statistics is only rudimentary, but I guess this means there was more variability from the "black" samples than the "white" samples. To a lesser extent, a similar pattern is found with reaction time. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As for race being a biological construct, I don't believe it is quite that simple. You mention that race is biological because it causes skin color differences, but the same argument can be made for blonds and brunettes, because they are biologically different with regard to hair color. I would say that self identified race correlates with geographical ancestry, which in turn correlates with certain biological or genetic variables. As a result, self identified race does have some biological or genetic correlates. But it should be emphasized, that these are only correlates and not precise relationships. There are either very few or no fixed differences between races and most variation is found within a race rather than between races. Looking at your hierarchy, I would add one more level, which is the individual. Hopefully in the future, knowledge of one's genome, may make self identified race, or any other subcategory, meaningless.

There are some important arguments in the section entitle "utility of study". The problem however is that studies involving the biology and genetics of human behavior are already occurring and major breakthroughs are almost an inevitability. I have suggested including a section on ethics. Such a section can include arguments for and against IQ/ genetics/race research. But it can also deal with the ethical problems that will arise when genes that influence the normal variation in intelligence are identified.

I definitely agree with Mr. Pesta that this subject is no trivial matter. Unfortunately, the subject of human differences in intelligence is often reduced to supposed race differences in intelligence, though a full range of IQ scores is found in any population. This means that the issue of low IQ scores affects every population.

Jensen and co often claim to be dispassionate scientists with no ideological motives. But their studies are quite popular amongst certain conservative groups, racialists and racists, who tend to be the most outspoken about the controversy. Their studies are therefore viewed as giving tacit support to racialists and racists. It would appear that Jensen and co. haven't done enough to assure the public that this is not the case. Gould, who was more of an egalitarian, appeared to have won the PR wars. Mismeasure still seems to be the most widely cited publication on the controversy according to google, [13]. Of course, there are many individuals who are not racists who may believe in genetic explanations, however they do not do so in public because they do not want to appear to support those with racist motives. Unless individuals who are clearly not racist begin to publicly support genetic explanations, hereditarian theories are likely to remain minority or fringe views. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd change that last statement to read "are likely to continue to receive bad press". I suspect the situation won't change until people stop equating "IQ" with "inherent value to society". --Aryaman (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this comment til just now. I suspect the bigger SD for blacks in my study was due to the fact I ran far fewer of them compared with whites. SD involves dividing by sample size, so that might explain it (it could also be that blacks are more variable...I dunno).

re race: if only hair color inequality were a huge issue with respect to human well-being, I'd agree. Hair colors are not over or under-represented on many key outcome variables (job opps; education; health, crime, etc). As far as I know, hair color doesn't correlate with anything. Whatever the cause, race-inequality has been a major issue for likely 1000s of years. If indeed there is something biological-- or genetic -- causing the gap, then we should study it and fix it. Not studying it scientifically is ostrich like and immoral (my assumption is that if there is a way to fix it, only science will figure it out).

It is unfortunate that racists get off on this research, but not everyone interested in this topic is a racist (Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, all believe the Asian mean IQ is higher than the White IQ, which to me is an odd kind of racism, unless people assert that they're publishing data on Asian's only as a short-term ruse to get people to accept the black/white difference. That sounds too conspiracy theorist to me). I had limited interactions with all 3 at ISIR two years ago. We did not hold any white pride rallies...fwiw.

I think Gould's heart was in the right place, but not his "science". He's a brilliant writer, but my opinion is his book here did a dis-service to reality. Resolving this is as important as figuring out global warming (imo). I can't think of any other area where a scientific fix would so vastly increase human well-being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.173.184 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooop, keep forgetting to sign off.

99.65.173.184 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If a sample is representative, then sample size shouldn't significantly affect SD, [www.childrens-mercy.org/stats/weblog2006/StandardDeviation.asp]. Since there are only about 200 individuals in your study, a visual inspection of the raw data might help resolve this difference. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is the evidence that race inequality has been a problem for thousands of years? Not very scientific statement! As for Gould, I do not know of any scientist who has disprovem any of his claims about race, which as an evolutionary scientist was one of his areas of expertise. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant to change that to 100s of years; point conceded.

99.65.173.184 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

3/10 update on the hijacking of this mediation by a group of biased editors

It should be noted that I asked the moderator several specific, relevant questions illustrating the logical contradictions inherent in his justification for suppressing legitimate peer-reviewed research. My questions were serious and clearly relevant (e.g., when someone pushing the same POV quoted "a psychology article" I asked for the source of the article.)

When I pointed out that his reply answered none of these relevant questions, he buried that statement as "off topic".

Later, I said that on average, people calling themselves "African-American" have an average IQ of 80. The moderator said my statement was "unsourced", even though that IQ gap is the topic of this article. He then said "I don't know whether [that statement is] true or false, myself, but I have not yet seen [it in] a reliable source." I include this here because his objection is observed to be insincere when compared with his earlier statement: "To my understanding, there is a statistically significant difference in IQ scores between races"' -- indicating a political agenda subcontext. TechnoFaye Kane 09:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions and answers

Ludwig requested sources for these statements:

STATEMENT 1:
On average, people calling themselves "African-American" have an IQ score of approximately 80; 70 in subsaharan Africa".

SOURCES:
Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., III, & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment. This is a meta-review of hundreds of studies which reach this conclusion-- a conclusion no longer considered controversial in the scientific community, as Ludwig well knows.

STATEMENT 2:
On average, people calling themselves "African-American" have a brain size 5% smaller than the brains of people calling themselves "white".

SOURCES:
Harvey, I., Persaud, R., Ron, M. A., Baker, G., & Murray, R. M. (1994). Volumetric MRI measurements in bipolars compared.
Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology, 25, 301–330.
Ho, K. C., Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J. V., & Monroe, G. (1980). Analysis of brain weight: I and II. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 104, 635–645.
Johnson FW. Race and sex differences in head size and IQ. Intelligence 1994; 18: 309-33.
Joiner TE. Head size as an explanation of the race-measured IQ relation: negative evidence from child and adolescent samples. Sci Rev Ment Health Prac 2004; 3: 23-32.
Simmons K. Cranial capacities by both plastic and water techniques with cranial linear measurements. Hum Biol 1942; 14: 473-98.
Rushton JP. Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence 1997; 25: 7-20.
Rushton JP. Mongoloid-Caucasoid differences in brain size from military samples [and NASA]. Intelligence 1991; 15: 351-9.

Statement 2 has been acknowledged as true by Ulri Neisser, Chair of the APA’s Task Force on intelligence,. Neisser, U. (1997). Never a dull moment. American Psychologist, 52, 79–81.

Statement 2 has also been acknowledged as true by Richard Nisbett, the major opponent of the hereditarian model: "According to a number of studies, Blacks have smaller brains than Whites." Nisbett, R.E. Intelligence and how to get it: why schools and cultures count. New York: Norton 2009.

But just to be sure, Ludwig2 threw another roadblock to presenting the horrible truth in Wikipedia:

"Granting that there are sources for both [statements 1 and 2], the statement that these two claims are related is unsupportable", and he requested sources.

SOURCES RELATING BRAIN SIZE AND IQ:

Gignac G, Vernon PA,Wickett JC. Factors influencing the relationship between brain size and intelligence. In: Nyborg H, Ed. The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. London: Elsevier 2003; pp. 93-106.

"It is true that the correlation between brain size and IQ may be as high as .40." Nisbett, R.E. Intelligence and how to get it: why schools and cultures count. New York: Norton 2009.

I now request that statements 1, 2 be included in the R/I article, as stated earlier by the moderator, who said:

"there are two problems with this material [statements 1 and 2] that you have failed to address - address them, and we can include them."

The moderator's new excuse for omitting relevant, published, noncontroversial data after saying he would if I sourced it will be the next installment of "documenting this biased moderation". -- Faye Kane, Homeless Brain TechnoFaye Kane 07:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP Fringe debate

Some comments on that section. I started a new topic, since I am a newb, and that section said do not modify...

1. All experts are not equal. If one accepts that Intelligence is the premier journal in the field (it is the only journal solely devoted to this topic) then the best experts are those who publish regularly in this journal. These people are devoting their academic lives to studying this topic; they hands down know it better than anyone else. "Science's" view on IQ is best represented by them, and not some other field.

2. Many many popular books attacking IQ research (from Gould to Nisbett) come from people out of field. As far as I know, neither Gould, nor Nisbett have published in Intelligence. They are certainly not regular contributors now (or when Gould was alive). Most of these books are much about politics than science.

3. If you don't accept Intelligence as the premier authority, then the burden's on you to explain why (it's peer-reviewed; the best scholars in the field sit as editors; and it's impact factor is above 3.0). The mainstream view *is* Intelligence, as any other journal or field lacks the expertise (which places the burden on others to show why the stuff published in Intelligence should be disregarded-- or even why it's so often ignored whereas this much data on any other topic would lead to no-brainer acceptance).

4. Neither Jensen, Lynn nor Rushton are therefore fringe. All of them sit on the editorial board. Jensen would easily make an objective list of top 100 psychologists all time (using scholarly output and impact as measures, even if time shows everything he said to be wrong). Look at either Lynn or Rushton's vita. They would get full professor at any school in the world were their work not so controversial. Both have published in elite journals outside their field (APA journals as well). Gottfredson even has an article/letter/commentary in Science.

5. I agree that there's not enough evidence to state strongly that the genetic hypothesis is true. What makes me inclined to consider it is the abject failure of the environmental hypothesis to explain most any of the data. Since if it's not environmental/cultural, it has to be genetic (excluded middle?), it seems to me like the 100% environmental model is doomed. That becomes only indirect (though perhaps valid-deductively) evidence for genetics, however.

6. My hunch is that the hardcore of regular contributors would by a majority (but not 100%) agree that the 100% environmental hypothesis is false. I have no data on this, it's an impression based on my interaction with some of them, and publishing (just 3) articles there, and peer-reviewing for the journal more than a few times.

Bpesta22 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence may be the leading journal on intelligence research. it is not at all the leading journal on research into race. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man may be controversial, but it is a well respected study on research on race. I am not sure how you define science and politics, but as far as I can tell it is a work on science and of science, not politics.

Can you state for me by the way what the "environmental hypothesis" is? There is much talk about it here but i have yet to be told what the hypothesis is.

Your reasoning "Since if it's not environmental/cultural, it has to be genetic (excluded middle?), it seems to me like the 100% environmental model is doomed. That becomes only indirect (though perhaps valid-deductively) evidence for genetics, however." strikes me as silly on its face. You have already agreed that the genetics hypothesis is not true. By your reasoning, this means the environmental hypothesis (and I still do not know what that is, precisely) is true. In fact, all you have said is that no particular hypothesis has yet to be confirmed. So this statement of your is just a non-sequitor. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's not have this erupt again. We've established group consensus on this point, and we don't need to rehash it. Bpesta is free to voice his opinion on the topic, but arguing with him over it is not going to result in anything constructive. And, Slrubenstein, opening a conversation with another editor with what amounts to "I haven't understood what you mean, so you're obviously contradicting yourself, you boob" is not exactly putting your best foot forward. How about asking for clarification before going for the jugular? --Aryaman (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's start with this: "agree that there's not enough evidence to state strongly that the genetic hypothesis is true. What makes me inclined to consider it is the abject failure of the environmental hypothesis to explain most any of the data." I have three questions.

• First, what is meant by "the environmental hypothesis?" "The environment" is a very complicated thing and to refer simply to "the environment" sounds awfully vague. I find it hard to imagine any hypothesis that simply states "the environment." Hypotheses use quantities in models to make predictions about what will be observed in either a controlled or uncontrolled setting. Hypotheses can be falsified. Frankly, I can imagine a dozen different environmental hypotheses off the top of my head, so which hypothesis are we talking about and how has it been tested?
• second, can you actually put the "genetic hypothesis" in the form of a hypothesis? How would one test it? how would one falisfy it? Is it indeed testable or not? Is it falsafiable or not?
• third, what is the difference between saying that the genetic hypothesis so far has no evidence to support it, and saying that the environmental hypothesis has failed abjectly? These seems like pretty uneven-handed language. If there is no evidence to support the genetic hypothesis, has it not "failed abjectly?"

I find these statements confusing and would welcome clarification. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Slrubenstein. I too would rather not start a huge debate here on the topic. I was expressing my opinion as someone with a relatively minor contribution to the literature.

I must say one thing though, it's simply not true that Gould's Mismeasure is well-respected. It's an utter piece of crap. It's been wholly ignored by people in field because it's irrelevant to anything the field is doing now. Citing Gould in the stub here might be popular, but it would be irrelevant to the truth of the issue.

I think the "environmental hypothesis" should be as defined by Rushton and Jenson (their 60 page review of race differences on IQ). To me, the pure 100% EH states that any race difference on IQ test scores is due to either the invalidity of IQ (including test bias) or to confounding environmental variables (race covaries with many things that might affect IQ-- SES, education, etc). In other words, no part of the IQ difference is caused by whatever the biology of race is.

I don't think that's vague at all. It makes very simple predictions (controlling for environmental variables should eliminate the difference). It's just the predictions have never been confirmed in decades of trying. Certainly, the burden's on the EH people to show us that any of those dozens of environmental variables actually statistically explain the gap.

I also never meant to imply the genetic hypothesis is false. I think there is no direct evidence for it, currently. As indirect evidence, the GH > 0 seems far more parsimonious than the 100% EH.

It's a huge (and likely unrealistic) burden to claim that x = 0 (genes) and y = 100% (environment). Given decades of failure at finding the factor x(s) in the environment that explain the gap, it's not unreasonable to assume that x > 0. But the evidence for x > 0 seems indirect to me (which doesn't mean it's wrong, and it is often the case in social science that evidence is indirect-- we can't randomly assign people to black or white, e.g.).

To me, hypothesis are either true or false (as they are usually single statements). They cannot be falsified, but by modus tolens can falsify the theory they're derived from. Seems like many on the internet disagree, but that's how I read Popper.

Your point 2: Hard to test directly until and unless we identify race genes (or clusters of genes) that when controlled for explain the gap. We have much data on biological and cognitive-psychological differences across race that can explain the gap (RT and IT in my paper completely mediates the black/white difference on the Wonderlic), but no consensus exists on the genetics of race and so no smoking gun study can yet be conducted on this hypothesis.

It's falsified by showing environmental variables are enough to explain the gap (though one could argue that IQ causes things like SES and education, but that's another can of worms).

3. I think GH predicts biological differences that should mediate the b/w gap. And, that's true (my study is an example). But, it's the fallacy of affirming the consequent to use these data to "prove" the GH. So, I think there is indirect support for GH (rather than no support, as you claim I implied earlier above).

Crap, I did just contribute to a debate here-- really not my intent. No obligation to reply nor to use anything I say in the final product. I am giving one opinion as a "semi-expert" in this area.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are misinformed about Gould. But let's just agree to disagree.

I think it is an error - an error if we wish to make any progress on this page, and an error if we wish to improve the Race and Intelligence article, to let Rushton and Jensen define the Environmentalist hypothesis. We read Lamarck if we wish to know what Lamarck's theory of evolution was; we should descibe a hypothesis as those who have formulated the hypothesis have. I am NOT just responding to Bpesta here; I think it s a major weakness with these discussions that no one has been able to describe the environmentalist hypotheses and provide a citation for a scientist who has tested this hypothesis. If the only source we have is Rushton and Jensen, we have a straw man, not a hypothesis.

Bpesta, please reread what you wrote, which may have been written in haste: "It makes very simple predictions (controlling for environmental variables should eliminate the difference)." Are you serious? What does this mean? Do you mean control all environmental conditions when the IQ test is actually taken i.e. air temperature, humidity, amount of light, etc are kept constant? Or do you mean control all environmental variables for the life of the organism? I a trying to take you in good faith but I find it hard to follow this. What I mean is I find it hard to think any graduate student would propose this as a hypothesis. I find it hard to believe for example that the NSF would fund dissertation research if this were the study. How can one possibly control ofor all environmental variables? If you cannot control for all environmental variables, you do not have one hypothesis. If you have to control for certain environmental variables at a time, you have separate hypotheses.

"As indirect evidence, the GH > 0 seems far more parsimonious than the 100% EH." Can you provide just a couple of examples of the indirect evidence for GH>0? I understand what indirect evidence is - for example, when a planet does not follow the path predicted, we might consider this indirect evidence for another massive object. But what is the indirect evidence for GH>0?

I honestly do not mean to be rude, but "It's a huge (and likely unrealistic) burden to claim that x = 0 (genes) and y = 100% (environment). Given decades of failure at finding the factor x(s) in the environment that explain the gap, it's not unreasonable to assume that x > 0." is just a non-sequitor. You may as well be arguing for the existence of ether or phlogisten. You are saying there is one cause for which we have no evidence. Then you are saying that we have other possible causes for which we have no evidence. Then you are saying that that makes the cause without evidence likely. I simply do not follow the reasoning. This is how creationists argue for God - since you (evolutionary biologists) cannot explain "x," therefore God is the explanation. But as we (who work within evolutionary science) know, just because research has not yet found an explanation for x does not mean that research will not find an explanation for x. Every philosopher of science who defends evoutionary theory points out that "God" functions for creationists as a residual category for anything they think science cannot explain. I don't see the difference here, I mean functionally.

Yes, it is a debate but one that I still think gets a core issues in the mediation. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein said:

I am afraid you are misinformed about Gould. But let's just agree to disagree.

No, I really am not, and that's the problem here. It goes back to my point on expertise. The experts in the area (those who have contributed peer review / new knowledge to the field) do not debate, cite nor worry about Gould. That's the worst thing that can happen to a "scientific" contribution. There's nothing in Gould remotely relevant to anything anyone in the field has been doing in recent history. The worst scientific contributions are not the ones smacked down by experts in the field. They are the ones that are completely ignored. That is Gould.

Beyond perhaps a book review of Nisbett's new book in Intelligence, watch how the field ignores it.

I'm not sure it's appropriate to share this here, but it makes the point nicely. One of my papers on IQ cited Gould in an attempt to provide a balanced lit review. An anonymous peer reviewer said: "Why cite gould. The man is an idiot. He's an advocate, not a scientist. Would the authors cite a paper on young earth creationism in a paper about geography?"

Quoting mismeasure in the stub, I think, weakens it greatly if one wants to be relevant and summarize state of the art. Not my call, though, and I suspect Gould will remain in whatever the final version is.

I do think EH is straightforward. It's the idea that self-reports of race are correlated with many important environmental variables that affect human well-being. It's also very simple to identify important environmental variables. Education. Nutrition. Access to Health care. Single parent versus mom and dad. White teacher/black teacher. Eating a good breakfast or not. Having internet access or not. The list is easy to produce and goes on and on.

No one study will ever control all these, but no one study needs to for at least one reason: The only way these factors (whether singly or in combo) can explain the gap is if they are CONFOUNDED with self reports of race.

If they are not confounded, they are simply a source of error variance and cannot explain the gap.

This is a critically important point. I spent days trying to get this point across to very smart people (I'll provide the link below) and they still didn't get it.

In my opinion, the biggest reason why you might not get consensus here is that I bet few wiki editors have 10 plus years experience and graduate study on the scientific method in general and this area specifically. It's very hard to no what's relevant and what's not without having the background. I say this not to demean, and it still might be the case that all my statements are false, but there is a reason why successfully contributing to the scientific literature typically requires a huge investment of time and education. There's a standard saying in social science (though the principal has exceptions): You wont discover anything important before age 40. There's a reason why that's "true".

Indirect evidence for GH: Biology and cognitive psychology mediate the gap. Reaction time and inspection time measures of IQ explain statistically paper and pencil IQ score differences across race. Many of the factors R&J offer as proof of GH (inbreeding depression; maturational differences) also in my opinion provide indirect evidence.

This link is people at scienceblogs desperate to debunk my ideas on race and IQ. They solicited a ph.d. student to review my article (she was very good!). If you peruse this, my apologies for any snark. This post occurred after I spent literally two weeks of my life in a jaw-droppingly unfair debate on the topic. By this point I was so frustrated that in many places I was not nice. It does however cover the idea of a confound versus source of error.

http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2009/12/reaction-times-and-iq-tests.html

Bpesta22 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you wrote, "It makes very simple predictions (controlling for environmental variables should eliminate the difference)." I am glad to see you are stepping back from this (I mean in practice, not principle) - different experiments would control for different kinds of environment. This means that there is no one environmental hypothesis, and I still do not see how it can be so thoroughly disproven as you suggest. Moreover, I still find it weird to let Rushton or Jensen describe the hypothesis, rather than whichever scientist has done the study, or studies. This direction leads only to a muddle. As for Gould, well, surely you are aware that the view of the reviewer of your article depends on the reviewer, and this to a degree depends on the journal. There are plenty of journals where you are likely to get a reviewer saying the same thing about Rushton. The problem here is that this article addresses a topic where two disciplines or fields of expertise converge. I would agree with you that Gould is not an expert on psychometrics and I never meant to suggest that. Of course, Jensen and Rushton are not experts on race. The fact that some claim that they are is just a result of the fact that following Sputnik the US poured a lot of money into higher education (which lasted for several generations) resulting in the fact that there are a huge number of PhDs, more PhDs than can get jobs in their own field, or more than can even get jobs, and there are so many journals out there that it is very easy to get almost anything published. For those of you who are still naive about academia, see this - an article with five coauthors in a peer-reviewed journal (impact fxactor 3.398), they all get a pub on their c.v. for this. The article is not based on any original research and has nothing really to do with neurosurgery. In fact, the sources they use are outdated and their analysis does not really hold up against any expert research on the topic. My point is the same that you have made: not all peer-reviewed journals are the same, you need to know which ones represent expertise in the field. I would trust a neurosurgery journal for articles on neurosurgery but not on the rituals of Amazonian Indians (I am not making an analogy, just proving the point that there are so many journals out there, simply getting published does not mean what it used to. It is also easier for a smaller circle of researchers to support a journal, which increases the risk of friends reviewing one another's ms's). Now, Intelligence may be the premier journal for research in psychometrics. It is not for research on other topics. It, or other journals in psychology or psychometrics, are likely to find a ready pool of reviewers who are experts in psychometrics, and the editor can tell the difference between a fair review and a poor review. This is important because even smart reviewers can have axes to grind. The reviewer you encounered who was dismissive of Gould may have been right - it depends on how you were using Gould. Were you using him to make a point about psychometrics? I too would be dubious of that citation (just as I reject Rushton or Jenson as sources for the EH). Or were you using him as a source for a point on race? In that case, well, yes, he is still a highly regarded expert. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't think I disagree with anything you said. Thanks too for discussing rationally.

I think my role-- if any-- should be this: So as not to further delay the project, you guys should continue on as planned. I offer to peer-review the final product and make (non-binding) recommendations. You all can then agree whether to incorporate my comments or not.

This would require far less time than me becoming a Wiki expert and would at least give you some sense of what a psychologist thinks of your stub. It might be a good idea to solicit an expert in genetics to peer review the gene/race stuff-- this would likely get you an even more balanced product.

Bpesta22 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your offering us your thoughts. You have flagged the issue of confounding factors in research on this topic - this may be one area where you can ofer more advice about how this specific methodological matter be treated. I belive encyclopedia articles should be educational, so I do not think we should shy away from complex topics; the question is how to cover them in away that informs rather than distracts. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)