Talk:Eyferth study

Psychology Start‑class Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Eyferth study, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

SES

I would have thought the environmentalists would have looked to the 8-point difference between boys and girls as providing additional validation, that is, low SES mothers being more likely to environmentally influence their daughters along those same lines (poor environment depressing scores), less so than their sons. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's unlikely, because the mixed-race girls had about the same average score as the mixed-race boys. I don't think Flynn, Nisbett or anyone else would consider this study as evidence for the claim that (white) women have a lower IQ than men. Nevertheless, they think that the study provides evidence for environmental causation of race differences. They simultaneously deny and admit that the data are anomalous.--Victor Chmara (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for more sources that discuss this.

In this regard, by the way, I'll have to figure out what place Wikipedia has in general for specific articles about famous scientific studies or papers. I see the article about Jensen's "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" is currently deleted, but there is a huge secondary literature based on the (Jensen 1969) paper, so I think the case could be made that there should probably be a properly sourced Wikipedia article posted about it. Similar reasoning, I suppose, would extend to Scarr's study, and quite a few of the other famous studies in this field. Thank you for launching the article. Step one for me is to continue to cobble together the Intelligence Bibliography on a subpage of my user page, so that all the editors can more readily look up sources. Then I'll try to do general fix-it-up on noncontroversial parts of articles on related subjects (are there such parts? I'll see) and eventually wade in with more substantive edits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally an inclusionist, since wiki articles don't take much physical space, and I think this is probably worth more than most lists of pokemon characters. But to defend against deletionists, you should look for some news articles which reference this study. There are countless studies (almost all of them) which have been cited by later studies, and most of them don't get wiki articles. But if you can find some news coverage anywhere which covers this as prominent, that will satisfy them. WavePart (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Malcolm Gladwell on Eyferth in the New Yorker: [1] He also discusses it in one of his books (it may be the same essay). Here's Nisbett's piece in the NY Times: [2] For comparison, Wikipedia has articles on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study and the Milwaukee Project.--Victor Chmara (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two don't really mention it by name, but do seem to talk about it. Added. WavePart (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German articles

It seems that Eyferth and colleagues published three papers on this topic between 1959 and 1961, all of them in German. I have no access to them, and my German is a bit, umm, rusty, anyway. Has anyone read those papers or some secondary source that describes what there is in them? Flynn's 1980 book on Jensenism apparently discusses the study at length, but I don't have it, either. In the article, I have cited only the 1959 paper, because that's what Jensen cites as a source for the numbers in the table.--Victor Chmara (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have library access to the 1959 paper, and perhaps to follow-ups as well. My German is more practiced for reading about linguistics, but I will give this a try. As before, I'll give higher priority for several days simply to updating my Intelligence Citations list on a subpage of my user page. The next sources I'll be going to the library for will mostly be about genetics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could have a look at this at some point. I suspect that Eyferth et al. did not study only intelligence but other things as well. The other article is

Eyferth, K. (1961). Leistungen verschiedener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 113, 224-241.

The third one seems to be a book:

Eyferth, K., Brandt, U. & Hawel, W. (1960). Farbige Kinder in Deutschland. München: Juventa Verlag.

--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Kudos on adding this material! The more that we can get decent Wikipedia articles on the most important individual articles, the better off we will be. At some point, I hope to re-add the article about Jensen (1969). In the meantime, you should feel free to edit it here. David.Kane (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article uses the wrong Eyferth study

The study cited in the article (Eyferth 1959) is a preliminary report, which (among other tests) examines IQ scores of a smaller group of children (51 mixed race and 25 white). The results of that study are different from the ones reported here and do show a 3 point difference in IQ (mixed race IQ of 96.6 and white IQ of 99.5), albeit a difference which apparently is not statistically significant due to the low sample size. The correct "Eyferth study" that should be used in this article (and from which the data in this article are taken) is "Eyferth, K. (1961). Leistungen verschiedener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 113, 224-241." -- 2A02:810D:2A40:46B8:E508:6BA7:D5C2:88DB (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditarianism section

I feel that Arthur Jensen's hereditarian interpretation should be included. Removing it renders the article less informative.

It's also pointless (and ironic) to have a section titled "Interpretations" and then only present a singular interpretation.

And besides, it there was already had a big discussion about this back in 2010, see comments by User:Ephery and User:WeijiBaikeBianji 40.131.178.46 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although this may be a misunderstanding, demonstration of personal preference concerning heritability of IQ interpretation [3] appears to disqualify editorial deletion of hereditarian content from Wikipedia. The standard for encyclopaedic editing is to present affirmative and opposing arguments for any contested proposition/explanation. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference to Jensen's views would have to be presented in accordance with WP:FRIND, that is, by non-fringe sources independent of Jensen –– since his views on hereditarianism are decidedly WP:FRINGE per this RfC consensus. @Richardbrucebaxter: It's not clear to me what you are attempting to imply about my prior comment which you've linked to, but if you believe that I have "disqualified" myself in some way then I suggest you take it up at an administrators' noticeboard. As you may know, editors are required to assume good faith unless presented with solid evidence to the contrary. Generalrelative (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen's views are cited elsewhere on Wikipedia without needing to reference "non-fringe [whatever that means] sources independent of Jensen."

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_cognitive_task

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man 72.46.51.6 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those "WP:" / all-caps constructions (e.g. WP:FRINGE) are links to policies and guidelines. If you don't know what "non-fringe" means, please follow the link to familiarize yourself with the guideline. And thank you for letting me know about other places where Jensen's fringe views might need to be cleaned out. It's very much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ESDOS states "Don't make snide comments." I believe your last two sentences violate that policy. Mosi Nuru (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They sound earnest to me.

When someone suggests we should violate a policy or guideline in an article with the justification that it is violated in other articles, as you did, it is only natural that those other articles are improved instead of the article itself made worse. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative Thank you for referencing the RfC on racial hereditarianism. [4] [5] This explains the editorial decision to delete the scientific arguments sourced here. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]