Talk:Race and intelligence

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

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Brain size

I put in the approximate magnitude of the difference. But forgot to log in! mikemikev (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That needs to be based on much more recent, reliable sources. There is considerable dispute in the professional literature both about the underlying facts (which brains are larger) and the significance (how much brain size has to do with IQ). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that there is considerable dispute about how much brain size has to do with IQ. This is irrelevant to the brain size data though. I've also heard that there is considerable dispute about the brain size data itself. Perhaps you can produce a reliable source to that effect to get us started. mikemikev (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev, you wrote, "I'm aware that there is considerable dispute about how much brain size has to do with IQ." Okay, I will take that as an acknowledgment that discussion of brain size may not belong in this article at all, unless a reliable source shows that it is plainly relevant. (I note for the record that Ramdrake has already provided a source that shows the brain size speculation probably doesn't belong in the article.) The article is already well beyond the usual length for a Wikipedia article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are unaware of a reliable source which discusses brain size in relation to the race IQ gap? Try the APA report. mikemikev (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, since scientific consensus is that we don't know what's causing the Race IQ gap, all potential factors are speculative. There's a much more powerful argument against stereotype threat, and by your logic it shouldn't be in the article, just because I can find someone who questions it. mikemikev (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This? "Lynn (1990) points out that large nutritionally-based increases in height have occurred during the same period as the IQ gains: perhaps there have been increases in brain size as well." Is that it? Or are you referring to another APA report? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is better. The section Say clearly what your results mean and do not mean is a nice guideline for this section. mikemikev (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I should hope your second one is better. What does it say? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Say Clearly What Your Results Mean and What They Do Not Mean. The first part of this principle seems natural to scientific writers. The second part does not. Let us suppose, for example, that you are interested in the relationship of race, head size, and intelligence. Let us further suppose that you find that head size has a correlation of about .20 with intelligence, and that head sizes of blacks are on the average around 6% smaller than those of whites. Finally, let us suppose that these results are based on large, random samples of both races (you see by this that my example is a fictitious one, although the numbers are taken, roughly, from Rushton, 1990). This obtained result means, as you surely would not fail to point out in your article, that there are some systematic—possibly causal--relationships here that may be of scientific interest. It does not mean that you should hire your next faculty colleague by measuring his (or her) head size. It surely does not mean that you should hire your next faculty colleague by looking at the color of his (or her) skin. With race a weak predictor of head size and head size a weak predictor of intelligence, this behavior would be ludicrous in the extreme, if what you want to select for is intelligence. Yet this conclusion- that race will predict intelligence with reasonable effectiveness based on its association with head size--is exactly the sort of conclusion that unsophisticated people will draw from this result if you do not explicitly tell them not to. Psychologists who are used to working on typical topics that psychologists work on aren't particularly attuned to this point, because few but their fellow specialists much care what their results do mean, and such experts are well aware of the limitations in the conclusions that can properly be drawn from them. With race differences, it's different. Lots of people care passionately, and most of them are not experts in interpreting research, even though many may, in a general sense, pride themselves on being informed and literate. mikemikev (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So in challenging Ramdrake's cite that supposed correlations with brain size aren't significant enough to be included here, you're sharing a cited argument drawing on a fictional example "roughly" resembling Rushton? One which half-heartedly concedes such an exercise hypothetically "may be of scientific interest"? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you're misrepresenting the quote rather negatively. It's clear from all of the cites that this is a significant issue. mikemikev (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

From Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C, Wicherts (2009): "Rushton (this issue) claims that global differences in IQ and development can be explained in terms of (race) differences in brain size. Rushton (2000) has gone to great lengths to show that race groups differ on average in terms of brain size, with Whites averaging 1347 cm3 and Blacks averaging 1267 cm3. The mean difference may appear impressive, but it is virtually meaningless without knowledge of the typical spread of brain size within populations, which is around SD = 130 cm3." mikemikev (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If anything, I minimized the negatives from the quote. The positive? Alluding to his fictional study, used for the purposes of argument only, "This obtained result means, as you surely would not fail to point out in your article, that there are some systematic—possibly causal--relationships here that may be of scientific interest." End of positive. The negative? Again alluding to the fictional study, "With race a weak predictor or head size, and head size a weak predictor of intelligence [any predictions of intelligence based on race] would be ludicrous in the extreme. Yet this conclusion ... is exactly the sort of conclusion unsophisticated people will draw from this result if you do not tell them explicitly not to." And he emphasizes how likely it would be such research would draw people who "care passionately" about race and intelligence and think they're "informed and literate" but lack the necessary expertise will jump to false conclusions from the research which should be left to experts. This does not make any claim that brain size is a "significant issue". It argues that it's an issue with high potential for misuse and misinterpretation. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the disagreement is about whether or not this work should be included here I think it would be more helpful to find sources that show Rushton's work is "significant" to the race and intelligence topic, and not sources who dismiss it as meaningless and prone to misuse by people "caring passionately" about race differences. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes "This obtained result means, as you surely would not fail to point out in your article, that there are some systematic—possibly causal--relationships here that may be of scientific interest." That's more positive than I hear about stereotype threat. Remember that this is a speculative line of evidence, currently being investigated, not something that has ever been discredited. The numbers from the "fictional" study have now risen to a correlation of 0.4 between brain size and intelligence, and the 6% size difference has been repeated many times. Every scholar in the field discusses the issue. It's significant, no question.

Wicherts does not dismiss the finding as "meaningless". He reasonably states that the brain size difference is meaningless without knowing the standard deviation. It then becomes meaningful. You wrote: [A]nd not sources who dismiss it as meaningless and prone to misuse by people "caring passionately" about race differences. This sentence is a complete misrepresentation of the quotes provided, taking the worst possible and false interpretation from each of them and putting them side by side as if they were expressed together. Wicherts reasons that the data is meaningful. Loehlin warns to caution not to generalize too much from the data, as we should, while at the same time stating that the issue requires further investigation. mikemikev (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You must not realize that among the three sources you've offered here, not one of them is supporting your assertion that this is a significant issue, that its findings are significant, or that every scholar in the field discusses it. You keep saying it, but your sources haven't. None of them have discussed the substance of the work, and two of them outlined how the work shouldn't be used. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was up to us to decide how significant something is. As a demonstration of your principle, can you produce a source showing that stereotype threat is a significant issue. Incidentally, we both know brain size is a very, very, significant issue. mikemikev (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we both don't know this. For as much significance as you're imparting to it here you should be able to source it better. And I haven't looked at the stereotype threat issue. Any challenged claim must be supported by sources--there is no presumption that either/both/or neither is significant without them. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there were several articles about the subject in Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010), where the numbers were not contested. The brain size data seems to have been accepted by mainstream psychology. The fact that you can't find a source contesting the numbers means that we only have your word that they are contested, which isn't worth anything. And as for finding a source saying that brain size is a significant issue, I think your making an unreasonable request. That's for us to decide. We're not going to find a meta-source about a speculative line of evidence saying "the brain size issue is x% significant to the race IQ gap". The fact that this issue is discussed by every psychologist in the modern literature demonstrates without question that it is a significant issue. mikemikev (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You could start here. BTW, this ref has now been provided to you three or four times. However, you seem to deny that it says in plain English that there is considerable dispute about brain size differences. --Ramdrake (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That paper is about the history of racial intelligence hierarchies. I can see no counter-factual brain size data. mikemikev (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And I see plenty. Sorry.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

All the modern studies in that paper confirm the result. Beals, Smith and Dodd used latitude as a variable, not race. I'm genuinely mystified as to which study from that paper you think refutes the result. mikemikev (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot exclude studies based on their age, unless you can come up with a secondary source which confirms that they are obsolete in some way. Second, several researchers (table on p.70 of the article) find different "racial hierarchies" in brain size; some actually don't even find differences at all. This proves that there is no consensus that "brains of African-Americans are 6% smaller than brains of White people". This is at best Rusthon's claim, and there is no scientific consensus behind this value.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be applying a rhetorical strategy involving me finding a 'secondary source' confirming the self evident. No, I don't have a secondary source stating that MRI data is better than filling skulls with lead shot. Why? Because it's freaking obvious! And still, you fail, knowingly or otherwise, to acknowledge that the table clearly represents intelligence hierarchies, often from the 1800's. It is irrelevant! The fact that you need to constantly churn up this rubbish shows clearly how weak your position is. You have one paper, clearly from an egalitarian apologist, clearly attempting to obfuscate the issue. No reliable counter data has been presented. mikemikev (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then, here's a couple more refs which make the point that Rushton's numbers and hypotheses are controversial and cannot be introduced as incontrovertible fsact as you're trying to do.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And here's Rushton's response and corrections based on Cain and Vaderwolf's feedback, re your first diff, which is also only to the abstract and not the whole paper; when conversations on sources are based on abstracts, they always lose the essential nuances. The point is that unless the R&I topic is represented as the long, twisting, back-and-forth conversation is it with the article ending at the current situation based on the latest research, the article is doomed. It's somewhat depressing reading through the constant tossing back and forth of sources as if the article content has been distilled down to a game of trumps. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Peters, replying to your suggested goal immediately above that "the R&I topic [be] represented as the long, twisting, back-and-forth conversation" does not seem to me to be the path to a reader-friendly, encyclopedic article. And, indeed, there are reliable secondary sources already in print that cover this issue quite thoroughly and accurately in a much straighforward narrative style. There are multiple whole books on this subject, but to get the Wikipedia article down to the desired length of a Wikipedia article means that our pleasant, thoughtful conversation here on the article talk page shouldn't be reproduced on the article page proper, nor should the article proper rehash every twist and turn of scholarly discussion on the topic. Brevity will be the soul of wit here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

One word to describe this, trolling. According to [11]

The archetypal example of trolling is the deliberately inflammatory edit or post — saying something controversial specifically to cause a flame war. Inflammatory edits usually come from users who have a minority or controversial opinion and who sincerely believe that this view is inadequately represented by Wikipedia, and therefore will seek reasonable ways to properly represent their views; trolls, however, will generally not seek consensus but will instead insist on a position without any regard for compromise.

Wapondaponda (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, please leave it out. I am not trolling, just trying to get WP uncensored. You are, however, an afro-centric POV pusher. mikemikev (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring. There is no consensus for your actions. Rather than try to force your version, or insult others here, please bring WP:RS that support the addition you are trying to make and address the valid concerns raised above. Verbal chat 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have given several RS. The finding is consistent and uncontested. mikemikev (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Signifigance of brain size difference: Someone said "Since the disagreement is about whether or not this work should be included here I think it would be more helpful to find sources that show Rushton's work is "significant" to the race and intelligence topic"

No. The fact that it was published by the apa MAKES it significant. So does the fact that it is not "Rushton's work"; it is a summary of HUNDREDS of studies published all over the world in prestigious academic journals. THAT make it even more significant, according to wikipedia policy (summary survey sources have the highest credibility of all. Go look it up).

I can't believe that you're even discussing this question: "Blacks have smaller brains. Is that relevant to why they have low IQ?s" I leave for a couple of months, and when I get back, y'all are taking this question seriously. I never should have left. Mikemv and occam, you've allowed yourselves to be nickle-and-dimed into taking outrageously POV, ridiculous assumptions seriously. GOD I wish I had time to spend on this! But even crazy homeless women have responsibilities... DAMN!

And I can't wait for sept 1. The article is full of biased propaganda and blatantly POV-slanted presentation. You might as well unlock the article now, as everyone else is waiting for sep 1 too. Freezing the article for months (which you'll soon do again in sept) is NOT the way to resolve this. EVERYONE agrees that the article now is screwed up and contaminated by the other side. Taking it to formal, binding mediation is. Unless mathsci can buffalo his way into the mediation staff by backroom-buddy politics and bragging about "Cambridge", the mediators will be more in tune with wikipedia rules, all of which mandate publishing the truth instead of cowardly, disproven lies of the wanaponda/mathsci type. TechnoFaye Kane 12:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bold Proposal for Article Editing

Inasmuch as the article appears to be doomed to full protection for a while, I thought I would open up here some metadiscussion on how to break the logjam of editing disagreements when the article goes back (I hope) to normal editing with no more than perhaps pending changes review. How about a rule for deciding editing disputes based on the very topic of the article itself? The article is about purported group median differences by race in human intelligence as estimated by IQ test scores. What if we each go to a psychologist (perhaps a psychologist chosen by a panel of other Wikipedians) and take an age-appropriate, currently normed, mainstream IQ test? Then whenever there is an editing dispute here, we could resolve the dispute by averaging the IQ scores of all the editors who support one idea about how to edit the article and comparing that to the average IQ scores of editors with differing opinions. We could follow a consistent policy of preferring the high-IQ opinion whenever we make a disputed edit. What do you think about that? (Yes, you are entitled to the opinion that this is a strange editing procedure, but I think it is rather more consistent with Wikipedia policy than, say, imposing a strictly limited source list on the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Hope it's a joke. Anyway, I'm 131, measured by a University of London psychology researcher. BTW, there's no log jam. The articles pretty stable. Some bickering over scraps really. mikemikev (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty that still needs to worked on in the article, including the idea that a person has one fixed IQ score that lasts a lifetime. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That was a good joke, but the problem is serious. Nothing will work in cases like that, short of creating an official editorial board to rule on the content. These people must have at least Bachelor's degree in the corresponding area of science. Not a new idea of course.Biophys (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I can't find where in the article it says "a person has one fixed IQ score that lasts a lifetime." mikemikev (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I found "IQ scores are fairly stable over much of a person's life." Is that wrong?mikemikev (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the corresponding area of science for editing this article? Are all bachelor's degrees completely comparable? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What area? Whoever studied race or intelligence as a part of their major courses. The point is not degree but creating an authority to rule on the content, specifically on several highly controversial subjects like this. An authority may be wrong, but it's better than no authority at all in such cases.Biophys (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bpesta has not just a B.S.; he has a PHd and has published on the topic in several academic journals, including Intelligence. But when the lies-telling rabble side found out he disagreed with them, they immediately said his opinion was irrelevant because, for instance, "he's an expert on intelligence but he's not an expert on race".

Because experts agree that 1) the gap is real, and 2) it's not environmental; until the other side is forced from above to STFU and defer to the truth, the supply of "experts" here will be niggardly. TechnoFaye Kane 12:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(If you admit being at a mental hospital, would it be a WP:NPA violation to imply that you're crazy? In any case, I don't want to have to come to that conclusion.)

Actually, experts do not agree that it's not "environmental", because "environment" contains many things not fully quantified. Experts agree that the gap is not due to as-yet analyzed environmental characteristics.

But the "lies-telling rabble side" is yours, as you've just established.

And, per the original "modest proposal", I weigh in at 163. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If we implemented your modest proposal, the environmentalists (or whatever we're calling the luddites now) would want the results thrown out. Among the truth side would be me, with 147 (as measured at the mental hospital I was committed to. I'm an official idiot-savant). But on the other side, "balancing" my grotesquely overdeveloped intelligence, would be wanaponda--an excellent example of the contested material in this article.

I rest my case. TechnoFaye Kane 12:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article on evolution of Homo sapiens

I thought this might be food for thought as edits resume: When the Sea Saved Humanity (Scientific American). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Typos

I have noticed some typos in the article. What is the best way of getting them fixed? Or should I just wait until the page is no longer protected? Colincbn (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Which typos did you have in mind? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The first two that come to mind are these: (my additions in bold)

• "soldier IQ gap was similar in the general population"
• "passed their matriculation exam, the majority of whom were Ashkenazi Jews"

I think there is at least one more but I will have to find it later, I don't have time to re-read the article right now. Colincbn (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Both fixed. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Colincbn (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Making the content and subject matter more approachable

I believe we need more than just college texts to make the R&I subject more approachable in order to not present it as merely a conflict of two mutually exclusive views. I offer the following as an example, discussing and quoting Jensen—who is for better or worse still at the center of the maelstrom—as an excerpt from potentially useful reading, if not useful for direct article content.

Appearing in:
The Jensen Uproar
Antony Flew
Philosophy, Vol. 48, No. 183 (Jan., 1973), pp. 63-69
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of
Royal Institute of Philosophy
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749708

For the geneticist, Jensen maintains, the right form of question is: 'How much of the variation (i.e., individual differences) in a particular trait of characteristic that we observe of measure (i.e., the phenotype) in a given population can we account for in terms of variation of the genetic factors (i.e., the genotype) affecting the development of the characteristic?' (GE, p. 85). The fact that hereditary and environmental factors interact makes it difficult but certainly not impossible to answer questions of this form. Nor is it to the point in the present context to complain that IQ tests are culturally skewed. 'To the extent that a test is not "culture free" or "culture fair", it will result in lower heritability measurement. It makes no more sense to say that intelligence tests do not really measure intelligence but only developed intelligence than to say that scales do not really measure a person's weight but only the weight he has acquired by eating. An "environment-free" test of intelligence makes as much sense as a "nutrition-free" scale for weight' (GE, pp. 117-118).

This is a reasonable example (I feel) for a secondary source representing Jensen as the primary, i.e., an appropriate non-judgemental mix of summation and quotation. (Because there is such wide-ranging discussion of Jensen over time, I do believe the original study and Jensen's comments over time merits a separate article, but that's another discussion.) There's another specific example I'm looking for again that I hope I bookmarked, when I find it, I'll add it here.

I think it's to the benefit of editors, personally, and of the article to be as widely read on the topic as possible—including scholarship that we personally disagree with—this is regardless of who says what about whom (speaking of scholarship not WP editors) that we do agree with regarding the R&I topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Approachability, example #2

In my study of history, I have found that materials from the times, of the times, are as equally valuable as materials benefiting from years of research and hindsight. And so, were I to embark on understanding the impact of Jensen's study, I would traverse that area of inquiry chronologically: from immediate reactions to reactions once removed, so to speak, to later scholarship. An interesting bit of reading in this regard, I submit, is:

The IQ Test: Does It Make Black Children Unequal?
Author(s): Lillian Zach
Source: The School Review, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Feb., 1970), pp. 249-258
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084239

Zach was doing psychometrics before I was born and (I believe) is a founder of Yeshiva University. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Approachability, example #3

Last for my "interesting reading" list for today.

The Values of the Academy (Moral Issues for American Education and Educational Research Arising from the Jensen Case)
Author(s): Michael Scriven
Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 40, No. 4, Science and Mathematics Education
(Oct., 1970), pp. 541-549
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169745

Scriven's paper deals with Jensen in the context of the reaction at UC at Berkeley, starting at the current situation and going on from there. We should reflect on whether some of the sturm und drang here is not the result of similar inadequacies, regardless of our personal estimations of our own preparedness.

Read Jensen's article and then ask, "Is its topic socially and politically important?" The answer is "yes." Is it morally important? Again, "yes." Is it intellectually important to the sciences as well as to the humanities? "Yes." Then why is the level of discussion of it so appalling? It is so only because the students, like most faculty, are not taught the skills, the data or the attitudes necessary for handling and acting on controversial, moral- political- scientific issues.

One last one with regard to the word "racism" being thrown about (IMHO) carelessly in WP discussions:

Third, the concept of racism involved in the charges [against Jensen] is peculiarly ill-defined. Racism originally meant the conscious or unconscious influence of racial characteristics on attitudes, actions, or arrangements to which these characteristics are actually irrelevant. In the past year or so the charge of racism in the universities has been supported by evidence to which it is, in this sense, irrelevant, and charity suggests we introduce another sense of the term. In this sense, which might perhaps be called "passive racism," one is racist if he has not done all he might reasonably do to compensate for the effects of racism by others. There is not the slightest evidence in his article that Jensen is a racist in either sense, although on general grounds the whole of mankind probably is laissez-faire racist including most radicals. Jensen can be identified as a racist only in the sense that his work can be (mis-)used by racists to support their case. If that kind of redefinition is allowed, then the revolutionaries are reactionaries since their activities provide support for reactionary programs.

Over and out. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, it looks like this discussion belongs on the history article, not this one. aprock (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In terms of detail, yes. In terms of informing our discussion, I'd say both places. There are probably more eyes here at the moment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Approaches for Finding Reliable Sources

The article mentions various forms of information about medical implications of race and intelligence. It's plain that the way to go forward with the article, once full protection is turned off and the ArbCom case is decided, is to follow RexxS's helpful suggestion in the ArbCom workshop discussion and apply Wikipedia reliable source standards for medicine-related articles to this article. That will reduce the bloat in the article. Primary sources should be mentioned only insofar as they would be mentioned in a summary, encyclopedic discussion of the topic in a reliable secondary source.

We have a source list all of us can use.

I am still compiling a source list for this article and the many related articles I have begun to edit. I haven't even had time yet to type up entries for the several sources kindly suggested by other Wikipedians. I'm reading lots of the sources to take breaks from typing. The source list will soon span several subpages with appropriate wikilinks, and it is being scrupulously cite-checked to ensure verifiability. As I continue to update it, I will add a pathfinder section to guide readers to the very best sources (and I will consider all of your opinions on that issue, but especially Wikipedia policy, as I proceed) and I will add a simple rating system for many of the sources. These sources are beginning to take over my office, but that is all right, as many of them are useful for my off-wiki research for other audiences.

Professional association statements will be extremely useful.

I see that long before I came on board as a Wikipedian, some editors have been suggesting that joint statements formally adopted by professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association statement "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and the "American Anthropological Association Statement on 'Race' and Intelligence" are helpful for defining the scope of the topic. I agree. That was a great suggestion. I wonder if there are other professional associations that have formally adopted statements on the topic, especially statements that take into account the last decade and a half of research or that reflect the perspective of some other mainstream scientific discipline. Such documents would be very good to look for and to refer to while editing this article and related articles. I further wonder whether professional associations in other parts of the world, such as the other English-speaking countries, have issued statements of this kind. Have any international organizations of scholars addressed the issue and made formal organizational statements on it? That would be a good reality check on what issues to cover in the article.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so let's guide our editing by referring to encyclopedias.

Another avenue I am pursuing right now is to see if I can obtain by interlibrary loan current encyclopedias on the general topics of psychology or anthropology or on the more specific topics of psychological assessment, intelligence, race, or related issues. A lot of people don't read encyclopedias anywhere near as much as they read blogs or comic strips, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the best way to practice writing for an encyclopedia is to read good-quality published encyclopedias. So let's look for encyclopedias that are recent and authoritative as another reality check on what to put into the article and how to read it with a fitting readable, neutral, scholarly tone.

P.S. I don't envy ArbCom having to do something with the current case. I'm sorry I didn't say over there, sooner, "Let's discuss sources back at the article talk page where such discussions belong." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)