Talk:Race and intelligence

Archives
Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 25, 26, 27 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64
Topics Discussions pertaining to haplotypes and haplogroups Discussion pertaining to planning and organization

Ancient Peoples:

Neothlithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. The Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neothlithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa (Brace et al., 2006).

The Ancient Egyptians have been described as having a “Negroid” body plan (Robins, 1983). In Zakrzewski (2003) the nature of their body plan was investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with the values obtained from the literature. Her findings suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described in Robins (1983)

Early southern pre-dynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying chronometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.

Brace, L.C., Seguchi, N., Quintyn, C.B., Fox, S.C., Nelson, A.R., Manolis. S.K., Qifend P. (2006). The Questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European Craniofacial form.

Robins G, Shute (1983). Natural and Canonical Proportions in Ancient Egyptians, Gottinger Miszellen 61:17-25

Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83:35-48 (1990)

Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121:219-229 (2003)

African American information

African American Information:

Black students face a number of educational disadvantages in their schools and classrooms when compared to white students. For example, Black students are typically taught by less qualified teachers than their white counterparts (e.g. non-certified teachers and teachers with limited experience) (Uhlenberg and Brown 2004). They are also concentrated in lower educational tracks, which have less qualified teachers, provide students with less challenging course work, and result in less learning (Hallinan 1994; Oakes 1990). Not only are black students given fewer opportunities to learn, teachers also hold lower expectations for them than for other students (Roscigno 1998; Ferguson 1998, 2004).

Moving beyond the classroom, the schools that black students attend are often less conducive to their educational success. For example, in Chicago, the vast majority of schools placed on academic probation as part of the district accountability efforts were majority African-American and low-income (Bryk 2003; Diamond and Spillane 2004). Moreover, while the mechanisms are complicated to sort out, school segregation (in particular the concentration of low-income African American students in certain schools) leads to lower outcomes for students attending these schools even after controlling for students’ prior achievement (Bankston, and Caldas 1996).

There are also differences that extend beyond schools and classrooms. Black children are more likely to live in poor households than white children. In addition, because of a history of social policy which limited African Americans’ access to the major avenues toward wealth accumulation (e.g. purchasing suburban homes), black families have far fewer assets than their white counterparts who earn the same incomes (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995).

Sociologist Dalton Conley reports that among people earning less than $15,000 per year, White families have median assets of $10,000 while black families have no assets. Among those earning $75,000 or more per year the median assets for White families are $308, 000 white the median Blacks is $114,600 (Conley, 1999). Parents with greater assets are free to use them to pay for tutors, purchase educational materials (e.g. computers), and pay for private schools and more expensive colleges. This means that even when looking at Black and White parents within the same social class we miss and important dynamic that contributes to material and educational inequality.

These differences in access to wealth are compounded by the fact that blacks regardless of social class, are likely to live in segregated neighborhoods (Pattillo, 2005). The result of this segregation is that blacks often pay more for poorer housing, receive less appreciation on their property, live further from employment opportunities, and attend more segregated schools (Bonilla-Silva 2001). Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has documented the racial cost of being African American by detailing its negative consequences for income and earning, occupational mobility, labor market participation, home loan approvals, various interacts with legal system (including exploding rates of incarceration), and every day forms of racial discrimination (Ibid). Finally, moving beyond the family, African Americans must navigate more difficult neighborhoods, even when they are middles-class (Pattillo-McCoy 1999; Pattillo 2005), and are far more likely to live in or near areas with high poverty rates which often have higher crime rates, poorer city services, and less effective schools.

There are also differences in parental education levels, as shown by the tabulation of “mother’s years of Schooling, while 77 percent of whites report that their mothers have either a 4-year college degree (41percent) or a graduate degree (36 percent). Black mothers have more years of schooling then Hispanics, but less than Asian, while Asians have less than Whites. Parental education levels for black and Hispanics in these districts are quite high compared even to the national average for whites. Still, there are gaps inside the district because the education levels among white and Asian residents are so very high.

In addition, black and Hispanic students have more siblings. Half of blacks, but 19 percent of whites, 32 percent of Asians, 40 percent of Hispanics and 41 percent mixed-race students have 3 or more siblings. Assuming that most siblings live in the same household, more siblings mean more sharing of scarce resources such as the family computer(s) and parental attention. White households have the fewest children and the most computers, while Hispanic have more children and the fewest computers. Similarly, white youth report more books in their homes than other groups. Hispanic students report the fewest books, but black, Asian and mixed students report substantially fewer than whites.

The data for this study lack financial status measures such as wealth, income or free-and reduced lunch status. The analysis here uses four standardized SES categories. Only two percent of blacks have SES characteristics in the highest SES category, while only three percent of whites have characteristics in the lowest category. Seventy-nine percent of blacks, seventy-eight percent of Hispanics, fifty-six percent of mixed students, forty-six percent of Asians and only twenty-eight percent of whites are in the lowest and lower-middle class categories combined.

The “prototypical student” defined by a given SES profile has a different predicted achievement level, depending on race/ethnicity. This is true for each of our three achievement variables (GPA, comprehension of lessons and understanding of reading). The lowest SES level shows the least race/ethnic achievement disparity 21. For this profile, the predicted black-white gap in GPA is only 0.14 GPA points and the predicted GPA and the predicted GPA for Hispanics is actually 0.09 points higher than for whites. Similarly, the other two achievements measures do not show any clear tendency for whites to rank higher than other groups. Generally, these findings show only small race/ethnic achievement gaps in MSAN districts among students with the lowest SES profile.

However, at the highest SES level, the disparity among groups is much greater. Whites rank highest and blacks lowest, with sizable gaps between them. The predicted GPA gap at the highest SES level is a fifth of a GPA point between whites and mixed-race students, one-third of a point between whites and Hispanics and a full half point between whites and blacks. The rank order or predicted achievement among groups is the same for the two skill measures.

Pattillo, Mary 2005. “Black Middle-Class Neighborhoods.” Annual Review of Sociology.

Pattillo-McCoy, Mary (1999). Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among Black Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (2001). White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Conley, Dalton. 1999. Being Black, Living in Red: Race Wealth and Social Policy in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Oliver, Melvin and Thomas Shapiro. 1995. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge

Diamond, John B. & James P. Spillane (2004). High Stakes Accountability in Urban Elementary Schools: Challenging or Reproducing Inequality?” Teachers College Record, Special Issue on Testing, Teaching, and Learning. 106 (6):1140-1171.

Bankston, Carl. And Stephen J. Caldas (1996). “Majority African American Schools and Social Injustice: the Influence of De facto Segregation on Academic Achievement”. Social Forces. 75:535-555.

Roscigno, Vincent, J. 1998. “Race and the Production of Educational Disadvantage.” Social Forces. 76:1033-60.

Ferguson, F.F. (2002). What Doesn’t Meet the Eye: Understanding and Addressing Racial Disparities in High-Achieving Suburban Schools. Wiener Center for Social Policy John F. Kennedy of Government, Harvard University. Oct 21, 2002

$Insertformulahere$

African Immigrants

A traditionalist may start with the following type of syllogism (Herrnstein, 1973, pp. 197-198; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, p. 105): – If differences in mental abilities are inherited, and – If success requires those abilities, and – If earning and prestige depend on success, – Then social standing (which reflects earning and prestige) will be based to some extent on inherited differences among people.

African Immigrants:

In an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Journal of Blacks in higher education (and several other sources using similar data), African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans (Logan & Deane, 2003; Dixon, 2006; Journal of Blacks in higher education, 1999-2000; Onwudiwe, 2006; Otiso and Smith, 2005; The Economist, 1996: Dodoo, 1997). Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61).

In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61). This information suggests that America has an equally large achievement gap between whites and African/Asian immigrants as they do between white and black Americans.

The Canadian sociological literature on immigrants also paints a similar picture, however, less stark. All visible-minority immigrant groups whether from the Caribbean or India do better academically than their native born (non-visible) cohorts, on average. Both foreign-born and Canadian-born blacks have graduation rates that exceed those of other Canadians. Similar patters of educational over-achievements are reached with years of schooling and with data from the 1994 Statistics Canada survey. (Guppy and Davies, 1998; Boyd, 2002).

In the UK, 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality conducted an investigation on the admissions practices of St. George's, and other medical colleges, who set aside a certain number of places for minority students. This informal quota system reflected the percentage of minorities in the general population. However, minority students with Chinese, Indian, or black African heritage had higher academic qualifications for university admission than did whites (Blacks in Britain from the West Indies had far lower academic credentials than did whites). In fact, blacks with African origins over the age of 30 had the highest educational qualifications of any ethnic group in the British Isles. Thus, the evidence pointed to the fact that minority quotas for University admissions were actually working against students from these ethnic groups who were on average more qualified for higher education than their white peers (Cross, 1994).

According to the report The State of Working Britain, published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the highly regarded London School of Economics, 21 % of adult blacks in Britain with African origins have a university degree. Only 14 percent of adult white Britons are college educated.

Of the African-born population in the United States age 25 and older 86.4% reported having a high school degree or higher, compared with 78. 9% of Asian born immigrants and 76.5% of European born immigrants, respectively. These figures contrast with 61.8% percent of the total foreign-born population. Immigrants groups in general tend to have higher high school graduation rates than the native-born general American population.

Those Africans born from Zimbabwe (96.7 percent), Botswana (95.5 percent), and Malawi (95 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Cape Verde (44.8 percent), Mauritania (60.8 percent), and Somalia (63.3 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006)..

Of the European born those born in Bulgaria (92.6 percent), Switzerland (90.5 percent), and Ireland (90.4 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Portugal (42.9 percent), Italy (53.7 percent), and Greece (59.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006).

Of the Asian born Mongolia (94.8 percent), Kuwait (94.7 percent), the United Arab Emirates (94.5 percent), and Qatar (94.3 percent) were most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Laos (48.1 percent), Cambodia (48.4 percent), and Yemen (49.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006).. (Most people think the Asian group includes Orientals exclusively, this is not true)

Dodoo (1997) finds that while African immigrants are indeed the most educated of black groups in the U.S., he finds a negative return on African immigrants’ education attainment for diplomas obtained outside the United States. However, the same does not hold true for Caribbean immigrants. Although he finds that among blacks – native and immigrants – Africans earn the most, when earning-related endowments such as educational attainments are included in the analysis, this expected African advantage disappears (Dodoo, 1997).

Distortion and Group Differences:

In the United States researchers often muddle group difference data by aggregating divergent geographical, historical, cultural and ethic groups into crude and arbitrary categories with whom they then compare with the general population. This in practice misleads unwary readers into the false belief that those aggregated group mean scores objectively characterize the individual groups who have contributed to the overall figures. Take for example: Only 5.3 percent of Central American immigrants have earned a bachelor’s degree, and only 19.5% percent have graduated from high school (Davy, M. 2006). This difference is often coupled with data relating to South American immigrants who, according to the Migration Policy Institute (Dixon, D., and Gelatt J., 2006) 23.4 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher and 74.3 percent reported having a high school degree. These skewed grouping methods; the Hispanic category in this case, creates the false impression in the minds of readers that South American immigrants are poor students based on the fact that they speak Spanish or Portuguese, alone.

The African born and Employment:

The African born are concentrated in management or professional and sales or office-related occupations. Of the employed population age 16 and older in the civilian labor force, the African born were much more likely than the foreign born in general to work in management and professional occupations as well as sales and office occupations. Additionally, the African born were less likely to work in service, production, transportation, material moving, construction, and maintenance occupations than the foreign born in general.

Ethiopians, Sudanese and Somalis, who mostly immigrate as refugees, do not do as well as their counterparts from English speaking African countries such as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya. The reason was because most people from the three countries immigrate to the United States as refugees and asylum seekers, following crises in their home countries (Otiso and Smith, 2005).

Source Materials:

African Immigrants in the United States are the Nation's Most Highly Educated Group. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61doi:10.2307/2999156

African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31 doi:10.2307/3134095

African-Born U.S. Residents are the Most Highly Educated Group in American Society The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 13 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 33-34 doi:10.2307/2963153

Boyd, M. (2002). Educational Attainments of Immigrant Offspring: Success or Segmented Assimlation?

Cross, T. (1994). Black Africans Now the Most Educated Group in British Society. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 3 (spring, 1994), pp.92-93

Davy, M. (2006). The Central American Foreign Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. April 2006

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the European Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. February, 2005

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the African Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. January, 2006

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the Asian Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. April 2006 Dodoo, F. N-A (1997). Assimilation differences among Africans in America. Social Forces 76: 527-46

Dodoo, F. N-A (1997). Assimilation differences among Africans in America. Social Forces 76: 527-46

Gelatt, J. and Dixon, D. (2006). Detailed Characteristics of the Caribbean Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. July 2006.

Gelatt, J. and Dixon, D. (2006). Detailed Characteristics of the South American Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. May 2006.

Guppy, Neil and Scott Davies (1998). Education in Canada: Recent Trends and Future Challenges. Ottawa: Statistics Canada and the Minister of Industry.

Kefa M. Otiso and Bruce W. Smith, (2005). “Immigration and Economic Restructuring in Ohio’s Cities, 1940-2000”, Ohio Journal of Science, 105 (5): 133-137 December 2005

Logan, J.R, Deane, G (2003). “Black Diversity in Metropolitan America.” Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban Regional Research University Albany

Onwudiwe, E. (2006). “Reflections on African Brain Gain Movement.”

The Economist (1996). 339 (7965): 27-28

In Educational Attainment, Black Immigrants to the United States Outperform Native-Born White and Black Americans. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education © 2003 CH II Publishers

POVERTY ACCOUNTS FOR GAP IN IQ SCORES BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES

EVANSTON, Ill. -- Contrary to "The Bell Curve" findings, a new study by researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities suggests that poverty and early learning opportunities -- not race -- account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites.

Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether.

I do not see why Poverty should be the whole reason for the gap. First of all, can you name any evidence that suggests that other factors DO NOT effect the gap? Fusion7 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're requiring proof of absence, which is next to impossible to give. The results above seem to indicate that poverty is the prime factor driving the gap. However, a full reference would be nice.--Ramdrake 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Race

Where skin color is concerned, all the northern populations of the Old World are lighter than the long-term inhabitants near the equator. Although Europeans and Chinese are obviously different, in skin color they are closer to each other than either is to equatorial Africans. But if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese.

Then if we take that scourge sickle-cell anemia, so often thought of as an African disease, we discover that, while it does reach high frequencies in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, it did not originate there. Its distribution includes southern Italy, the eastern Mediterranean, parts of the Middle East, and over into India. In fact, it represents a kind of adaptation that aids survival in the face of a particular kind of malaria, and wherever that malaria is a prominent threat, sickle-cell anemia tends to occur in higher frequencies. It would appear that the gene that controls that trait was introduced to sub-Saharan Africa by traders from those parts of the Middle East where it had arisen in conjunction with the conditions created by the early development of agriculture. Every time we plot the distribution of a trait possessing a survival value that is greater under some circumstances than under others, it will have a different pattern of geographical variation, and no two such patterns will coincide. Nose form, tooth size, relative arm and leg length, and a whole series of other traits are distributed each in accordance with its particular controlling selective force. The gradient of the distribution of each is called a "cline" and those clines are completely independent of one another. This is what lies behind the aphorism, "There are no races, there are only clines." Yes, we can recognize people from a given area. What we are seeing, however, is a pattern of features derived from common ancestry in the area in question, and these are largely without different survival value. To the extent that the people in a given region look more like one another than they look like people from other regions, this can be regarded as "family resemblance writ large." And as we have seen, each region grades without break into the one next door. There is nothing wrong with using geographic labels to designate people. Major continental terms are just fine, and sub-regional refinements such as Western European, Eastern African, Southeast Asian, and so forth carry no unintentional baggage. In contrast, terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless. Their continued use, then, is in social situations where people think they have some meaning. America and the race concept ________________________________________ The role played by America is particularly important in generating and perpetuating the concept of "race." The human inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere largely derive from three very separate regions of the world—Northeast Asia, Northwest Europe, and Western Africa—and none of them has been in the New World long enough to have been shaped by their experiences in the manner of those long-term residents in the various separate regions of the Old World.

It was the American experience of those three separate population components facing one another on a daily basis under conditions of manifest and enforced inequality that created the concept in the first place and endowed it with the assumption that those perceived "races" had very different sets of capabilities. Those thoughts are very influential and have become enshrined in laws and regulations. This is why I can conclude that, while the word "race" has no coherent biological meaning, its continued grip on the public mind is in fact a manifestation of the power of the historical continuity of the American social structure, which is assumed by all to be essentially "correct."

Finally, because of America's enormous influence on the international scene, ideas generated by the idiosyncrasies of American history have gained currency in ways that transcend American intent or control. One of those ideas is the concept of "race," which we have exported to the rest of the world without any realization that this is what we were doing. The adoption of the biologically indefensible American concept of "race" by an admiring world has to be the ultimate manifestation of political correctness.

Dr. C. Loring Brace is professor anthropology and curator of biological anthropology at the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

racist article

Virtually none of the sources from the page have been subject to peer-review.

IQ and evolutionary history

I have moved here the entire IQ and evolutionary history for discussion (both MoritzB's and Muntuwandi's contributions), as I feel it has significant problems which need to be addressed first:

date

According to the Out of Africa theory, one or more subgroups of early modern humans left Africa between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago to become the ancestors of the non-African populations. Population-level differences in climate-selected traits such as skin color evolved in this time period. A similar time scale applies to the evolution of possible cognitive differences between human populations.[67]

That's not so bad

Muntuwandi vandalized that sentence. According to Meisenberg's article the ancestors of non-African populations left Africa 100 000 - 120 0000 years ago.

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That is but one of many, many possible references. They don't all agree, and we shouldn't mislead the reader in thinking all estimates of this migration agree.--Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that Muntuwandi replaced the time Meisenberg provided with his own, unsourced opinion but the original reference stayed. Thus, he misled the readers of Meisenberg's views. The multiregional hypothesis is the other viewpoint which could be included. It would give more support to the genetic hypothesis as Negroids and Caucasids would have a longer separate evolutionary history. A lengthier discussion of human evolution is hardly in the scope of this article.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is that estimates of when the first populations of humans left Africa do vary. Meisenstein's estimate is but one, and isn't backed by the most recent evidence (which suggests that the first human populations out of Africa are considerably more recent than what was thought).--Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative viewpoints of the time can be presented but they do not challenge Meisenberg's point that there has been sufficient time for the creation of large genotypic differences in intelligence between human populations. Ashkenazi Intelligence has an evolutionary history of barely a millennium.

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The dates you are proposing are way off the consensus, if this is out of Africa, currently the genetic data converges on 56,0002006 study. the latest study, from last week suggests 55,000 years ago. Meisenberg is out of the loop hence his dates and all informations that is connected with those dates are obsolete.Muntuwandi 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IQ and evolutionary history, selection for intelligence

Human populations may have equal genotypic intelligence only if high intelligence has been equally favored by natural selection in all populations. Before the advent of modern contraception, usually the wealthy had higher fertility and lower mortality than the poor. In modern societies people with low intelligence usually have more children. In the late 20th century United States, unequal reproductive rates favoring the less intelligent would have lowered the IQ of the population by anywhere between 0.35 and 0.8 points per generation had the environment remained unchanged over time. To create an IQ difference of, say, 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation – about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America.[68]

Here, the racialist POV is presented as mainstream, and either needs to be much more tightly attributed, or be removed as OR.

All information in the paragraph is properly sourced. (See the reference to Meisenberg's article.)

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is 1)sourced to a single POV; there are many others 2)The main text should at least say something like "According to Meisenberg", and then present alternate viewpoints.--Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. And Meisenberg's POV is not "racialist", it is population genetical.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the issue. Many researchers disagree with this particular viewpoint.--Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who? What objections do they make?

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB judging by your edits you are over reliant on information from the bell curve. I hope you do not sleep with the book under your pillow. The biggest problem with this analysis is the flynn effect . Everywhere IQ is rising, regardless of income status of ones ancestors or their intelligence.Muntuwandi 22:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Flynn effect only makes it more difficult to observe the evolutionary trends in intelligence in modern societies but does not challenge the basic premise that parents with high genotypic intelligence have intelligent children compared to average people.

MoritzB 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, very few researchers agree with that (well the hereditarians, of course, and possibly not even all of them but few others). Please understand that, however you may think, the hereditarian position is demonstrably the minority position in this debate (as per, for example, the APA statement on The Bell Curve: Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns by Ulric Neisser), and should be presented as such.--Ramdrake 00:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You are confusing the hereditarian position on racial differences with the hereditarian position on individual differences. According to the APA consensus statement

Across the ordinary range of environments in modern Western societies, a sizable part of the variation in intelligence test scores is associated with genetic differences among individuals.

The effect of genetics has been conclusively proven and there is no relevant controversy about this in the academic community. The hereditarian hypothesis has been accepted as an explanation to individual differences in IQ.

MoritzB 02:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph we're discussing above talks about IQ differences between populations. You're talking about IQ differences between individuals. Evidence so far shows a genetic contribution to IQ differences between individuals (the jury's still out as to exactly how much). The APA statement is clear about that. The APA statement is also clear about the fact that a genetic contribution to IQ differences between populations (in this case the B-W IQ gap) is not supported by the evidence. Please don't conflate the two.--Ramdrake 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there some misunderstanding? I was very clearly talking about individual differences when I said that "parents with high genotypic intelligence have intelligent children compared to average people". Meisenberg simply says that if there are IQ-based differences in fertility the average IQ of a population changes and this view is backed by the APA consensus statement.

MoritzB 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Percentage genetic distances among major continents based on 120 classical polymorphismsCavalli-Sforza

	Africa	Oceania	East Asia	Europe
Oceania	24.7
East Asia	20.6	10
Europe	16.6	13.5	9.7
America	22.6	14.6	8.9	9.5

The problem with Meisenberg's analysis is once again the dates. He uses 100,000 years as a reference to drive IQ by 15pts when consensus for out of Africa is 55,000 years ago. He misuses Cavalli Sforza's study. To state that the IQ difference between two of the most divergent populations should be 12 points in line with the black white gap. But that is overly simplistic

Not relevant. Meisenberg writes: "to create an IQ difference of 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation – about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America." If the migration happened 55 000 years ago different evolutionary pressures should drive the IQs of the populations apart only about 0.008 points per generation - about 2% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America. The point is that the amount is very small.

MoritzB 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Cavalli-Sforza'a study on classic polymorphisms the most genetically divergent populations are Africans and Oceanians at 24.7%. He argues that if evolution was independent between all the races then the genetic distance between Africans and all other races should be the same. However the shortest genetic distance from Africa is to Europe at 16.6%. This could not have occurred if evolution was independent. In short Europeans have more recent African admixture than any other population. Consequently if genes control IQ. By random drift we would expect the largest gap between Africa and Oceania, and all other gaps to be intermediate.Muntuwandi 02:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You simply do not understand the concept of genetic drift. It does not mean that the populations which are genetically most different should necessarily have the largest differences in a single trait.

MoritzB 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jensen’s value of 14% for the influence of race is close to the value for racial + ethnic ariation in Cavalli-Sforza’s calculation. If IQ genes float as randomly in the gene pool as Cavalli-Sforza’s DNA variations, then the difference in "genotypic" intelligence between the most divergent human populations should be about as great as the measured difference between black and white children in California: about 12 IQ points.

He is implying that the most divergent human populations are blacks and whites which is not the case. It is blacks and OceaniansMuntuwandi 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the racial + ethnic variation in Cavalli-Sforza's calcution refers to the expected difference between the most divergent human populations in a given attribute (such as IQ). His measurements of the genetical distance between different human populations are an unrelated issue.

MoritzB 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

that is the flaw in meisenberg's argument. We already know the most genetically divergent population from africa is australasia. All other populations are intermediate in gene frequencies. Furthermore we know that intelligence is under the influence of several genes because IQ scores are continuous with no gaps or jumps. Meisenberg's argument is entirely speculative because those genes for intelligence have not been identified.

Heritability is controversial subject because it does not conclusively prove the presence of genes. Heritability can even be influenced by the environment. fruit flies grown at a temperature 20 degrees live longer than Genetically identical flies grown at 25 degrees. This longevity can be passed down to the third generation even if the future generations are grown at different temperatures. Longevity is increased without any change in the genotype. The author of the The Gene Illusion believes that genes for major psychological traits will never be found. Current consensus is that genes play a role in behavioural traits but they need input from the environment to be expressed and the environment may trigger different effects in the same gene. This is most likely why the search for the intelligence gene has turned up zilch.Muntuwandi 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The question is whether some populations may have genetic traits which cause them to have higher average IQs in typical Western societies. Contrary to your claims, genes affecting IQ have been identified and it is expected that more of them will be known in the future.

MoritzB 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

IQ and evolutionary history, ice age theory

According to Richard Lynn the exposure to one recent ice around 28,000-10,000 years ago, created evolutionary pressures which increased the intelligence of Europeans and East Asians significantly above other world populations. [69][70]Others also question that if ice ages created evolutionary pressures, then all peoples living in the arctic should exhibit high IQs such as Native Americans or the the Inuit. Furthermore it should be noted that Europeans were hunter gatherers just like the rest of the world until farmers from the middle east brought agriculture 11,000 years ago. According to Diamond, this is the one single event that led to the future industrialization of Europe. [71]. In addition Cavalli sforza indicates that Europeans have been miscegenating with Africans at several points in the last 30,000 years to the extent that European skeletal structure is closest to Africans than any other group[72]. The is because the genetic distance between Europe and Africa is the least divergent when any other population is compaired to Africa[73].

Here, both viewpoints should be presented, even though they might need to be slightly rephrased. Some of the phrases are a bit too far reaching and seem out of scope ("According to Diamond...").

Muntuwandi vandalized this paragraph, too.

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing my point. Your version presents only one viewpoint, thus is inappropriate.--Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add Loring Brace's viewpoint.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with including Cavalli-Sforza's viewpoint?--Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Because that "viewpoint" was just false information by Muntuwandi. Cavalli-Sforza wasn't even mentioned in the reference he dishonestly provided.

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza shows that the European population is the most genetically mixed-up on earth, being a mix of genes from Asia and Africa. He uses this to poke fun at Arthur de Gobineau, the 19th-century French author of the An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, which helped inspire German racism. De Gobineau, he says, "would die of rage and shame at this suggestion since he believed that Europeans . . . were the most genetically pure race, the most intellectually gifted and the least weakened by racial mixing."[1] Muntuwandi 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference you cited was this: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf

Don't mislead readers with false citations.

Also, according to WP:RSEX peer-reviewed scientific studies are appropriate sources, not newspaper articles.

MoritzB 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

this is a peer reviewed study

LOL, don't you even know what is a peer-reviewed study? That is just an article published in a magazine and its content lends no support to your claims.

MoritzB 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference from the Science Daily based on an article published in Nature, or are you disputing the fact that Nature is a properly peer-reviewed journal?--Ramdrake 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Muntuwandi just used "Science Daily" as an example saying that "this is a peer-reviewed journal". Obviously, he doesn't know what a peer-reviewed journal is. I found that funny.

MoritzB 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

if you want to dot the i's and cross the T's, I said peer reviewed "study" not "journal". In any case that is inconsequential. The fact is it is a reliable source. And even if not there are hundreds of other studies that converge at the same dates.Muntuwandi 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an article in a science magazine, not a peer-reviewed study. It may be a reliable source, though. The problem is that you choose to lie. You claim that "when the first modern humans migrated to Europe over 40,000 years ago they had long limbs and narrow bodies like most East African populations today." Maybe but the Science Daily article doesn't say so. Why do you provide false sources?

MoritzB 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When the first modern humans migrated to Europe over 40,000 years ago they had long limbs and narrow bodies like most East African populations today.http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf

MoritzB, why are you so angry? lighten up, Muntuwandi 03:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, please be aware that you're now seriously in breach of: WP:AGF,WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please rectify, or risk being blocked.--Ramdrake 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the old Sticks&Stones strategy?

"If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves."

Considering all the cheap accusations of trolling and "racism" hurled against me I don't think you can complain about civility. Besides, Muntuwandi should explain why he fabricates information and backs his opinions with unrelated sources.

MoritzB 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

IQ and evolutionary history, writing

Skills that require IQ require writing. But writing was only invented 5000 years ago. During much of this period only a handful of people had the privilege of learning to read or write. Mandatory education is a recent requirement, only a few centuries old. Hence scientists question whether the evolution IQ could have been boosted by ice ages that took place 70000 years ago or 20,000 years ago only to become useful 5,000 years ago[74]. Hence other suggest that the intellect and skills that took man to the moon had already evolved in homo sapiens prior to their dispersal from Africa 50,000 years ago[75]. As evidence Jared Diamond states that people who were recently living in the stone age in New Guinea have now mastered western technology though never having had access to western technology in the 40,000 years of their existence in New Guinea.

I would suggest this paragraph be entirely rephrased. I can't quite describe it, but something sounds wrong with it.

It should be removed.

Some interesting counter-points are made in this paragraph. It should be kept but rephrased if the section is to be kept. Again, we cannot present a single researcher's POV as representative of the opinion of the entire scientific community.--Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add a counter-point by Loring Brace.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure Loring brace is an appropriate counterpoint here.--Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Other supporters of environmental hypothesis say the same thing, to my knowledge.

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Measurements of genetic diversity by the population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the difference in “genotypic” intelligence between the most divergent human populations caused by random genetic drift should be about 12 IQ points. [76]

I'm sorry, but Cavalli-Sforza never said anything about genetic differences leading to diverging IQ levels. This is someone else's disputed conclusion (Jensen's) presented as Cavalli-Sforza's.--Ramdrake 10:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is Prof. Meisenberg's conclusion of Cavalli-Sforza's measurements as the reference indicates.

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the text should say so. The reader should be able to get the gist of the whole point without having to wade through the references.--Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It does now. And I am not aware that this view is "disputed". As IQ is a partially genetically inherited trait it is subject to genetic drift like any other trait.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Genetic drift remains to be demonstrated on intelligence. We can't let the article mislead readers into thinking it's a given.--Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All genetical traits are subject to genetic drift and require no particular demonstration.

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The first problem with MoritzB's version is that it pushes back the occupation of Europe from africa to 120,000 years. Though it seem each study publishes a new date the latest date for the first sustained human presence outside Africa is 50,000-60,000[2]. So Lyn's assertion that European population went through two ice ages, one at 70,000 years is inconsistent with the consensus for the new dates.

Lyns assertion is that evolutionary pressures from the ice ages contributed to high IQs. However Diamond criticizes this view. he says

"Another one, popular with inhabitants of northern Europe, invokes the supposed stimulatory effects of their homeland's cold climate and the inhibitory effects of hot, humid, tropical climates on human creativity and energy. Perhaps the seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more diverse challenges than does a seasonally constant tropical climate. Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing.

Although formerly popular, this type of explanation, too, fails to survive scrutiny.The peoples of Northern Europe contributed nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last thousand years; they simply had the good luck to live at a geographic location where they were likely to receive advances (such as agriculture, wheels, writing, and metallurgy) developed in warmer parts of Eurasia. In the New World the cold regions at high latitude were even more of a human backwater. The sole Native American societies to develop writing arose in Mexico south of the Tropic of Cancer; the oldest New World pottery comes from near the equator in tropical South America; and the New World society generally considered the most advanced in art, astronomy, and other respects was the Classic Maya society of the tropical Yucatan and Guatemala in the first millennium A.D. guns germs etc Muntuwandi 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The second problem with the ice age hypothesis is that the Last glacial maximum took place 20,000. The first agriculture pops up in the Near east 11,000 years ago. Trade in agriculture facilitates the invention of writing 5,000 years ago in the Near east. This is the first evidence of skills that require g. So the question is if ice ages create evolutionary pressures for intelligence, then why did the people in the Near east invent writing 5,000 years ago instead of those living in Northern Europe right next to the glaciers. Muntuwandi 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to defend anything here, but of course WP is about verifiability, not truth. I'm sure there are scientists which we can quote that have raised these objections before. Thus we can present point and counter-point to Lynn's arguments to make the section more balanced.--Ramdrake 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is ignorant of the ancient population migrations and his opinions have no validity. Scientific objections to Lynn's arguments can be included, of course.

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

These are not my opinions they are Jared Diamond's opinions. So maybe you are saying that Diamond is ignorant of ancient population migrations. Maybe you know better than diamond about these things.Muntuwandi 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't understand what Diamond writes and think that it somehow relates to the topic.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Diamond is unequivocally disputing the hypothesis that the ice ages make people more intelligent.Muntuwandi 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. He says that warmer climates are better suited building civilizations. Diamond says nothing of the effect of cold climate on evolutionary pressures.

MoritzB 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Better suited than what? Colder climates, of course. If warmer climates are better suited at building civilizations, it flows that colder climates (such as ice ages) are less suited for this purpose. It's the old "half-full/hafl-empty" false dichotomy.--Ramdrake 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Diamond says that that the earliest civilizations arose in the Middle East because of the ideal geography and climate of the region. Does this have anything to do with human evolution or intelligence? No. Diamond does not dispute or challenge Lynn's hypothesis. He does not even talk about it. The development of civilization and evolution of intelligence are different issues. Inuits score 6 points higher on Raven's matrices than Englismen but they didn't build a higher civilization largely because of the unsuitability of arctic climates.

MoritzB 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

One would expect that, if anything, civilization would arise first where people are most intelligent, if such a place exists, or that at least that place "where people are more intelligent" be among the earlier civilizations. That you insist that the two (intelligence and early civilization) are to be considered as totally unrelated goes counter to logic and likely constitutes OR (at least, I've never seen any researcher express this kind of idea).--Ramdrake 01:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That very idea has been expressed by Diamond. Also, I haven't said that intelligence and early civilization are unrelated. Caucasians and Orientals rather than Africans developed advantaged civilizations because of genetic reasons explained by Lynn and Vanhanen.

Arctic regions didn't have capacity to support large populations and consequently advantaged societies did not develop in them.

MoritzB 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

From an anthropological perspective, Africans did develop advanced civilizations eg the Nok. Muntuwandi 03:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Afrocentrists. However, the purpose of this article and the section in question is not to discuss the relative achievements of the races.

MoritzB 23:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, several of the earliest civilizations were in fact not built by Caucasoids: besides the Nok civilisation, the Egyptians were clearly a mixed race, the Kushites were black (Nubians), also, all the civilizations of Central America were built by non-Caucasoids; there are many other examples.--Ramdrake 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sumerian civilization was built by "whites" (using the word in the strictest sense excluding Semites) and the civilizations of Indus Valley and Ancient Egypt by Caucasians. They are generally considered be the oldest civilizations.

MoritzB 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not know for certain, Currently gene frequencies in the middle east are intermediate between Europe and Africa.Muntuwandi 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe in Afrocentrist pseudoscience.

MoritzB 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't denigrate other editor's contributions. If you doubt their contribution, please ask for references.--Ramdrake 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Punctuated equilibrium

Seriously!! There are currently two competing theories regarding the evolution of the brain.

• One is punctuated equilibrium in which the evolution takes place in short phases followed by stasis over a long period.
• the other is the brain continues to evolve to this day

1)One one extreme, theory one (punctuated equilibrium) posits the human brain reached its current form 50,000 years ago in Africa and has undergone no evolution since. ie that we are in the stasis period. According to this theory if we were to time travel a child from 40,000 years ago to today. That child can learn and function like everyone else. Evidence is that no matter how primitive a people are, there children can always learn western ways, like reading and writing. This means that skills to learn how to read, write and do arithmetic already evolved in Africa.

2)the other extreme is evolution of the brain never stopped. This means that people today are genetically smarter than those who lived 40,000 years ago. A child who is time warped from 40,000 years ago would be too primitive to live in todays, society even if it were raised by modern parents.This is the theory supported by racialists because they believe that differential selectionary pressures will result in different intelligences between populations.

3) An intermediate between the two , stating that major changes took place 50,000 years ago and there have been minor but significant changes since.

If we are to objectively discuss the evolution of IQ I propose this structure. Muntuwandi 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research and your beliefs are also wrong. Only sourced, verifiable information is needed.

MoritzB 23:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the same goes for you.--Ramdrake 00:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All information in the section I wrote is backed by verifiable citations to scholarly journals. If you have different viewpoints to offer please state them.

MoritzB 03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB this is not proposing OR research, the theories that you have are not the only ones about intelligence. I am implying all of them including the one's that you propose. The only problem is that you need to find more up to date sources, Meisenberg's date's are all way off rendering his analysis obsolete. Muntuwandi 03:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether the changes in the average IQ of Caucasian and Negroid populations have happened in 50 000 or 100 000 years.

According to Harpending et. al. an IQ difference of similar size has been created in only 500 years! They write:

With its high heritability, IQ should respond rapidly to directional selection according to

equation 1. Assuming, for example, that the narrow-sense heritability of IQ is 0.8 and that

the parents of the next generation have an average IQ one point above the population

mean, the average IQ increases by 0.8 points per generation. In 20 human generations,

about 500 years, it would increase by 16 points—slightly more than the difference

between average Ashkenazi IQ scores and average European IQ scores. Change of this

magnitude over historical time is not at all implausible.

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

All that is speculation since nobody has yet to conclusively identify one gene that is associated with increased intelligence. We cannot test the IQs of people who lived 500 years ago. this is guess work.Muntuwandi 04:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Quoting Harpending: "Whether a trait is under the control or influence of one locus or many is not very interesting because its evolutionary dynamics would be nearly the same in either case. Farmers could breed for milk production in cows or back fat in hogs for millennia without identifying the relevant genes. Evolutionary biologists use the verbal shorthand of gene for to avoid long-winded specification of genetic material that predisposes to.” It is also just wrong that no genes affecting specific human behavioral traits, temperaments, or personality types (p. 31) have been found. There are a lot of them: variants of dopamine receptors, serotonin transporters, monoamine oxidase variants, and so on."

http://www.aaanet.org/aes/bkreviews/result_details.cfm?bk_id=3917

MoritzB 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes scientists are always finding genes for this and that and then retracting their statements. currently all that there is is a few weak associations that can be made such as dopamine receptors and risk taking. But there is no conclusive evidence for a single gene that is the sole influence of one personality trait. For traits that are controlled by a single locus, breeding can work but it is much harder to for polygenic and multifactoral traits. For example scientists have failed to find a gene for schizophrenia yet it is found in all races at similar frequencies. Its heritability among monozygotic twins is 50%. Hence it is possible for one twin to develop schizophrenia and the other one not to. How does one reconcile this. Possibly genes+environment=phenotype. Therefore one cannot use breeding and be guaranteed to obtain the schizophrenia trait. Scientists have also failed to find genes that are responsible for traits such as homosexuality. the children of gay parents are often straight. People who are gay are born from straight parents. Muntuwandi 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Biology and sexual orientation

Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as a (homo)sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors.

• Causes of schizophrenia-

evidence suggests that genetic and environmental factors can act in combination to result in schizophrenia.

While you may say these are irrelevant, they are complex traits just like intelligence. It is thus unlikely that IQ is only under the influence of genes like all other polygenic traits.Muntuwandi 05:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that IQ is only under the influence of genes. It has been established that it is under the influence of both genetics and the environment. According to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis allele frequencies change between generations because of natural selection and other reasons. The APA report on race and IQ has linked IQ to these allele frequencies. If you disagree you can either disprove the APA report or the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Otherwise it must be concluded that Meisenberg's premises have been correct.

MoritzB 05:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The APA report nowhere speaks of allele frequencies. Please don't attribute ideas erroneously.--Ramdrake 12:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If allele frequencies change between generations and are subject to natural selection then how come schizophrenia has not been selected out of the population but is instead increasing in frequency in modern times. Schizophrenia is linked to intelligence (John Nash). Schizophrenia is found in equal frequencies in all races. hence darwinian theories on personality traits are difficult to reconcile. Clearly the environment plays a role. Furthermore if intelligence is so heritable what has happened to all the children of geniuses. Einstein descendants are largely unknown. Intelligence recycles, within 3-4 generations genius is lost and the descendants return to average IQs. Meanwhile the descendants of dullards become geniuses after 4 generations. That is the cycle of intelligence.Muntuwandi 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you have trouble understanding why the incidence of some genetic diseases increases despite the fact that they apparently lead to fitness losses I suggest that you read a book of human evolution. Your feeble attempts at original research give you no justification to revert any information I have added to this article.

MoritzB 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, puncuated equilibrium states that *ALL* evolution works that way. Our brain, of course, is still evolving, but the time period for radical changes in the structure of the brain (and physical and biochemical differences as well, since they go hand in hadn) vary from species to species, from order to order, depending on just how big and complex the species' brain is. Species' with smaller brains can change much more greatly within shorter periods, due to their shorter overall lifespans, while it's the opposite for other species. That's something innumberable people seem to ignore when it comes to the subject of racial differeces. And no, sorry, Lahn's work doesn't count. There's been quite a few studies, even one buy Rushton, that's found no correlation with brain size. Likewise did those alleles vary GREATLY within "race", not to mention how they were found at their highest frequency in native americans, and were absent in much of southeast asia. That's just the tip of as to why the whole idea was bunk to begin with.

Lead sentence

The lead sentence should be changed. The current one preempts an important issue of the topic, but does not offer a good introduction to the matter itself. I'll hold off on changing it on my own since this topic is so controversial.. W.M. O'Quinlan 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions?--Ramdrake 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it serves as a good introduction to the topic.

MoritzB 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think something along these lines would at least be an improvement on the current lead: "Race and intelligence is the controversial study of how human intellectual capacities vary among the different population groups commonly known as races. This study seeks to identify and explain the differences in manifestations of intelligence (e.g. IQ testing results), as well as the underlying causes of such variance." W.M. O'Quinlan 18:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Race and intelligence is the controversial study of how human intellectual capacities may vary among the different population groups commonly known as races. This study seeks to identify and explain the observed differences in manifestations of intelligence (e.g. IQ testing results), as well as the various underlying causes of this variance.? That would sound good to me, provided a consensus of other editors agree.--Ramdrake 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me; however, where you have it "...human intellectual capacities may vary among..." (emphasis mine) I think problematizes something that is rather beyond dispute. At this point there are observed differences among the races, whatever their causes may be, so it would be more accurate/direct to omit "may" from that sentence. W.M. O'Quinlan 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I phrased it this way because some researchers doubt that IQ or "g" is the sum total representative of human intelligence (see the theory of multiple intelligences); some other measurements of intelligence, we may find out, might vary inversely. Alternately, one could speak of "certain measures of intellectual capacity", as IQ (or "g") is disputed as an overall measurement of intelligence. Does that make sense?--Ramdrake 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection. The lead sentence is just fine now.

MoritzB 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see why you had it like that; I agree. I do think, though, that there should be some mention of the dispute over "g" and IQ somewhere in the introduction because it is somewhat misleading to suppose that the default assumption is that IQ tests don't measure anything significant.

MoritzB: reread WP:LEAD; the lead sentence may be okay for a school essay or a paper, but not for an encyclopedia article. It is too vague; even if that sentence belongs anywhere in the introduction, it is certainly not at the beginning, where the reader may have no idea of the relevance of the nature/nurture debate or exactly how it is central to a discussion on race and intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan 22:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how we can convey in just a few words that IQ tests are very significant (for example, as social outcome predictors), but that there is significant debate over whether they measure all of intelligence (to me, these two are absolutely not contradictory). Any suggestions?--Ramdrake 12:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the lead sentence now; naturally, it is open to adjustment, but I think it is at least some improvement. W.M. O'Quinlan 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Media portrayal

There could be a short overview how media portrays research on race and intelligence but it actually mainly proposes a controversial environmental explanation to the IQ gap. The explanation of "media stereotypes" competes with more plausible (IMO) environmental explanations such as Black culture, nutrition, racism, legacy of slavery, Flynn effect etc.

Thus, I will move it to the proper place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_(Explanations)#Environmental_explanations

A separate section for this single explanation is just POV pushing.

MoritzB 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Anyone Tell me Why...?

I was wondering why people can't say that a certain people group has a lower iq score than others without it being seen as maliciously racist. We can state other facts and they are not denounced as racist. For example, European, Asian and Hispanic people are slower than people of African decent...no european has ever run a 100m dash in less than 10 seconds, while over 20 people of African decent have. If people of African decent have a slightly lower average IQ than those of European decent, why can that not simply been said? I understand that culture, SES and family background all affect IQ but the authors of The Bell Curve as well as Arthur Jensen controlled for those factors and still found a difference in IQ. Can we not just say that different people are good at different things?

(67.119.13.75 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Hey watch this video Muntuwandi 04:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's few fixed physical differences between ethnic groups, so that kind of falls apart. Either way, physical differences are set greatly apart from aspects involved with the mind, and it's disgustingly naive to think it's just a matter of being better at something else. Unsigned Comment by User:67.180.36.51 17:48, 3 August 2007 (edit) (undo) 71.249.100.53 07:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would say that it is disgustingly naive to deny that intelligence is not a genetic factor, considering a persons development is almost entirely controled by their DNA in every other aspect of their development to discount just one area of this because that is the current politically correct view rather than the scientifically correct view is incredibly childish! 84.68.62.89 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence

I am removing the section because it is a hypothesis about intelligence, but it is not conclusive. No scientist has found a gene that confers upon Ashkenazi Jews increased intelligence, they are only speculating.Correlation does not imply causation.

A team of scientists at the University of Utah has proposed that the unusual pattern of genetic diseases seen among Jews ofcentral or northern European origin, or Ashkenazim, is the result of natural selection for enhanced intellectual ability.

He is proposing a hypothesis, he has not proved it.

This paper elaborates the hypothesis that the unique demography and sociology of Ashkenazim in medieval Europe selected for intelligence. In particular we propose that the well-known clusters of Ashkenazi genetic diseases, the sphingolipid cluster and the DNA repair cluster in particular, increase intelligence in heterozygotes.

All this is speculative hypothesis, nothing is conclusive. So we should not give it any more credibility than speculation maybe it can go to Ashkenazi intelligence article.Muntuwandi 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research. Your claims are also wrong. The article is not speculative and proves that natural selection has increased the frequency of genetic traits in question.

MoritzB 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article does hypothesize, and doesn't prove anything. However, all scientific theories started with some hypothesis somewhere.--Ramdrake 16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article presents factual evidence that the frequency of Ashkenazi genetic diseases has been affected by natural selection. Because of that it is reasonable to presume that they increase IQ in heterotsygotes.

MoritzB 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's reasonable to presume. Your presumption is your own OR.--Ramdrake 17:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the main thesis of the study by Cochran et. al. which is linked as a source. The study presents evidence that the disease mutations have increased the fitness of heterotsygotes and the study explains why the fitness increase must be caused by increases in genotypical IQ.

MoritzB 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, abut they can't say for sure that those mutations are what causes the observed IQ scores. There are demonstrable genetic differences in this ethnc group, that's a fact. That these genetic differences are related to an increased intelligence is at this point just a hypothesis, and certainly not proven.--Ramdrake 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not how the story comes across, as you wrote it. Also, the study has been criticized for many things, one of them for making the starting assumption that BGH was strictly a genetic trait and then trying to fit evidence to prove it, which is way, way out of mainstream. As such, giving this single study this much space I think breaches undue weight NPOV guidelines.--Ramdrake 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The space given to Black-White IQ differences breaches WP:UNDUE, IMHO. As a principle genetic IQ differences between different White ethnic groups deserve the same amount of examination. Therefore, WP:UNDUE requires us to include information about Ashkenazi intelligence to this article.

The study has been positively reviewed by the famous evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker. http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html

If the study has indeed been criticised you are welcome to include the criticism to the article or change the wording of the paragraph so that it is NPOV. However, there is no justification to withhold information about this study.

MoritzB 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article by pinker discusses 7 different hypothesis, If there are so many theories then nothing has been concluded.Muntuwandi 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, those 7 hypotheses are included to the same theory presented by Cochran et. al.

MoritzB 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Negative images of blacks in some medieval Iranian writings

Moritz has introduced some information from Minoo Southgate: The negative images of blacks in some medieval Iranian writings, Iranian Studies, Volume 17, Issue 1 Winter 1984. It appears to be interesting but some what inflamatory in the context of its placement. I did a G-search and found this work discussed in the description of coursework at Univ. Penn; see: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/africa/courses/syllabi/Ames159.html. --Kevin Murray 20:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Southgate describes the Islamic views nicely. They had enormous importance in the development of Islamic slave trade and subsequent Atlantic slave trade. Thus, this information is certainly relevant and should be included to the article.

MoritzB 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the information is important, but the quote as displayed could be offensive. I also think that it amy be overly detailed for a summary section, and belongs in the history sub-article. --Kevin Murray 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like a gossip column to me most likely creative trolling. This has nothing to do with the article. I had already mentioned this before why do we need to dig up quotes from periods before anthropology became a science. Every person in history has always viewed his or her own group as the best. this is a childish edit. MoritzB if you have a racialist agenda why not try to dig up more sophisticated information to support your views. Your sources are really terrible. If you are having troubles in your life, it is not the fault of black people. You should not look for scapegoats for whatever inadequacies or shortcomings that you have. Muntuwandi 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks.

If the views Europeans had during the colonial era are relevant so are the views of Muslims who enslaved more blacks.

As an analogy the Nazis considered Jews sub-human. Although the Nazi views were not based on real science and they are "offensive" they have historical importance and SHOULD be included to Wikipedia. Muslims had similar opinions of Blacks and they were used to justify slavery.

MoritzB 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The views of Eurpoeans are there as an example; the point of this article isn't to report on every single racist view in history. The passage you added is needlessly inflammatory, especially quoted pretty much out of context as you did. I'm not saying that racist views should be reworded to be presentable; I'm saying that needlessly inflammatory material should be avoided, especially one with peripheral import on the subject of the article such as what you wrote in.--Ramdrake 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You claim that I quoted the passage "out of the context". Why?

MoritzB 00:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still double-checking it, but the author I don't think used this entire set of epithets in the same sentence.--Ramdrake 01:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add it to the history subpage. Are you OK with that?

MoritzB 01:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What is important about the views of Europeans is that they were the first to be formalized from folk taxonomy into pseudo-scientific classifications and theories of intelligence. While acknowledging that all societies had beliefs about foreigners, they remained just that with no formalization.Muntuwandi 01:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The racial division to Whites and non-Whites in the Islamic society was the foundation of elaborate White Supremacist social practices. The blacks remained in oppressed status because of their race.

MoritzB 04:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this information is pertinent to this article specifically, but it is interesting to see that racial prejudices are not strictly limited to western society. --Kevin Murray 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All animals have tribal instincts. Often on the street when you see two people meet who are walking their dogs, the dogs get into a fight. Chimpanzee groups are known to attack members of other groups. [3]. Racism is simply an "us and them" animalistic instinct that goes to show that no matter how civilized humans think they are, at the core they are just beasts like all other animals.

One fact I find quite interesting with regards to religion and Africans is the origins of Afro-asiatic languages. The semitic languages are now thought to have Negroid origins. Jared Diamond says.

We're taught that Western civilization originated in the near East, was brought to brilliant heights in Europe by the Greeks and Romans, and produced three of the world's great religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Those religions arose among peoples speaking three closely related languages, termed Semitic languages: Aramaic (the language of Christ and the Apostles), Hebrew, and Arabic, respectively. We instinctively associate Semitic peoples with the Near East. However, Greenberg determined that Semitic languages really form only one of six or more branches of a much larger language family, Afroasiatic, all of whose other branches (and other 222 surviving languages) are confined to Africa. Even Even the Semitic subfamily itself is mainly African, 12 of its 19 surviving languages being confined to Ethiopia. This suggests that Afroasiatic languages arose in Africa, and that only one branch of them spread to the near East. Hence it may have been Africa that gave birth to the languages spoken by the authors of the Old and New Testament and the Koran, the moral pillars of Western civilization.[4]

So I think it is overly simplistic just to isolate quotes from a specific point in time in which Arabs speak lowly of blacks, when it seems most likely that at one point history ancestors of Arabs were taught a language which would become their own by African Negroes. Muntuwandi 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The evolutionary history chapter added

Other verifiable POVs can be added or inaccuracies corrected as per WP:NPOV. Consensus has been achieved of the major points. MoritzB 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Please stop insisting it has been reached. Please re-read the discussions above if you need convincing. You haven't changed an iota from the previous version which was rejected by consensus, to the point where the same grammatical errors are still there.--Ramdrake 06:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see those grammatical errors. Please point them out. After some discussion we have arrived to a consensus in major issues. It is obvious. Please stop pointless reverting which leads to loss of information.

MoritzB 11:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB the analysis that you include is terribly flawed, to start with the dates are way off.Muntuwandi 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The date of migration mentioned is verified and reflects scientific consensus.

MoritzB 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references to that effect (that it reflects scientific consensus), outside of the Meisenberg article, please.--Ramdrake 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The other scientific POV is now included to the article.

MoritzB 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Ramdrake 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The migration is said to happen 55000-60000 years ago in the article. That is the date Muntuwandi wanted.

MoritzB 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Meisenberg's whole analysis is based on obsolete dates, furthermore it is fringe theory since there is no evidence of consensus.Muntuwandi 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC

Meisenberg's method is not based on any date and any possible date used in the calculation leads to the same conclusion. He is also a well-known, reputable scientist who has written a book widely used in university education.

Also, Steven Pinker endorses a similar theory about Jews although in that theory the IQ gains of the Jewish population have happened only in 800 years. This is enough to prove that the theories are mainstream.

Furthermore, I ask you to stop that senseless reverting. Fourdee already put the lost information back to the article. It is not appropriate to criticise one sentence or issue without any reliable sources backing your opinion and then remove a lot of other verified information.

MoritzB 06:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've edited your changes accordingly, without reverting them. Hope you'll appreciate the differences.--Ramdrake 12:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

English Jews are mostly of Sephardic descent so Lynn's findings are consistent with the hypothesis of higher Ashkenazi IQ.

MoritzB 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found other papers from Lynn that estimate the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews even lower: around 103. I'll include them as soon as I have a minute.--Ramdrake 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, "Three early studies are summarized that found that Jews in Britain have mean IQs in the range of 110–113. New data are presented for two nationally representative samples of 7–16 year olds in which Jews had mean IQs of 108.5 and 107.7. Taking all five studies into account, it is proposed that the best reading of the IQ of Jews in Britain is 110"..." It is proposed that the over-representation of Jews among Nobel prize-winners can be partly explained by the higher average Jewish IQ."

Lynn: - On the high intelligence and cognitive achievements of Jews in Britain

So those are the actual IQ scores Lynn reported.

MoritzB 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look here: Ashkenazi_Intelligence#Psychometric_Findings It does give a finding of 103.5 from Lynn's research alone. Please don't conflate result scores by Lynn with Lynn's estimated averages based on his results plus those of others.--Ramdrake 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lynn has never claimed that the IQ of British Jews is 103. The number he gave in the study you quoted is 110.

MoritzB 15:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, thus your edits were in direct conflict with Lynn's abstract you gave as a source and they have to be reverted.

MoritzB 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Depending on which of Lynn's studies you look at, his findings are somewhere in the 103.5-108.5 range. He only gets to 110 when he compares his studies with other studies.--Ramdrake 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Quoting the source directly: "Three early studies are summarized that found that Jews in Britain have mean IQs in the range of 110–113. New data are presented for two nationally representative samples of 7–16 year olds in which Jews had mean IQs of 108.5 and 107.7. Taking all five studies into account, it is proposed that the best reading of the IQ of Jews in Britain is 110."

This is what Lynn's study says. However, you wrote that "Richard Lynn finds an average IQ for Jews in Britain of 103 to 107 only" and gave that abstract as a source.

MoritzB 13:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence (part 2)

There are several theories on Ashkenazi intelligence, we should not give undue weight to only one theory. see Ashkenazi_intelligence#Alternative_Explanations and WP:UNDUE Muntuwandi 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of those theories are really alternative explanations how the genotypic IQ gap developed.

MoritzB 01:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So far, there is little proof that the nature of the IQ gap is genetic, just hypotheses.--Ramdrake 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is proof that the disease mutations have given a fitness advantage, see the study of Cochran et. al.

MoritzB 13:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the working hypothesis that they have: that the heterozygous version of those mutations gave them a fitness advantage. It's a working hypothesis, but it's far from proven.--Ramdrake 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, in the study they analyzed the genome and concluded that the frequency of the mutations had increased rapidly because evolutionary selection.

MoritzB 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't tie these genetic mutations to increased IQ.--Ramdrake 14:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As the possibility of disease resistance is excluded in the study the increase in IQ is the only plausible explanation for the fitness advantage when the functions of the genes are taken into account.

Furthermore, environmental explanations need to be proved too. So far those environmental explanations do not exist.

MoritzB 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The absence of an organized environmental explanation (which is false, please see Ashkenazi_Intelligence#Alternative_Explanations) would not mean that the genetic explanation would be the explanation by default. This is the same logical fallacy that prompts creationists to try to poke holes in evolution. There is the distinct possibility that these genes do not confer any IQ advantage whatsoever, and the paper by Cochran doesn't prove anything. It makes certainly makes for an interesting hypothesis, but it doesn't prove that the IQ advantage has any genetic basis.--Ramdrake 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No. There exists a genetic explanation which is much better supported by the totality of evidence than any environmental explanation that has been proposed according to Cochran et. al.. Merely the existence of the possibility that the gap might be explained only environmentally does not mean anything as scientific theories cannot be proven with 100% certainty.

MoritzB 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, none of those alternative explanations are environmentalist. They are alternative genetic explanations proposing different mechanisms of selection.

MoritzB 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer MoritzB's version however the statement of the measured number may not be in line with the best (largest sample population) studies cited on Ashkenazi Intelligence which seem to say 107.6, which is close to what I have seen cited for Germans of 106. Citing the highest numbers may exaggerate the difference since these are small studies and conflict with the others. Another issue is that Jews and Askhenazi Jews are not races by the modern sense of the term, so if we are going to go back to the older sense of "race" meaning "ethnicity" some equal treatment of other high-IQ ethnicities would be in order rather than focusing on one. As far as we have information, perhaps we should look at the measured IQ of all groups that significantly deviate from the norm, perhaps in a table, and base the numbers on studies with large sample groups. Something more like (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, just guessing), Askhenazi 107.6, Germans 106, South Koreans and Japanese 105, Northern Europeans as a whole (whatever value), Southern Europeans (whatever value), American Negroes 85, African Negroes 67 - Just break it out as far as we have useful information on those groups that deviate the farthest.

I agree there should be some balance as far as other points of view, but I personally feel the exact opposite of Ramdrake - environmentalist explanations tend to be desperate unfalsifiable fabrications without any real scientific evidence much like creationist arguments - based purely on an agenda and need for something to be true, while the science has always supported a substantial genetic cause for all basic human behaviors. There's no scientific study that doesn't find similarities in separately adopted twins' behavior, or correlations between adoptees and their natural parents, etc. - there is no kind of science in support of the pure environmentalist argument, only conjecture and propaganda. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro paragraph contains a factual error--Ashkenazi Jews score significantly higher than other groups (107-115) in the U.S. and Britain.

In the book IQ and Global Inequality, Hong Kong and Singapore scored 108, higher than the jewish 107.6. As in the IQ and the wealth of nation, the average IQ for Shanghai is 109.4.65.254.40.42 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also in South Korea, the IQ is 109 in Lynn, R. and Song, M.J. (1994) General intelligence, visuospatial and verbal abilities of Korean children. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 363-364.Shinzuru2 17:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar high scores can be measured in European university cities. Highly intelligent people tend to selectively migrate to specific geographic areas so measurements in these areas can give a false view of the average IQ of a nation. The IQ averages reported in the IQ and the wealth of the nations for Asian nations are lower than you wrote. (See Lynn's web site)

MoritzB 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

Why does the introduction break down the data advantageously for Ashkenazi Jews when the subject is about race and intelligence (as opposed to ethnic groups and intelligence)? Juxtaposing the Ashkenazi Jews against ALL of Europe, ALL of East Asia, and ALL of North and South America is statistically ridiculous and distracts from the main focus of the article. The fact that Ashkenazis have the highest average IQ scores likely belongs somewhere in the article, but not as the last sentence of the introduction. W.M. O'Quinlan 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, East Asians are not a race either. Also, e.g. the Malays belong to the Mongoloid race.

Malays doesn't belong to the Mongoloid race. Northeast Asians are more genetically similar to Indians and Caucasians than Thai, even though Northeast Asians and Thai people look similar. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/85/16/6002.pdf

MoritzB 07:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well regardless of the status of the "Mongoloid race", I think that the "East Asian" and "European" and "sub-Saharan African" categories comprise more meaningful racial groups than the Ashkenazi Jews do by themselves. W.M. O'Quinlan 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I can agree. They are just a European ethnicity after all.

MoritzB 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following point is offtopic

"For the vast majority of human evolution, Africa has been the region that produced new hominids with larger brains. For example fossils of early humans who lived between 2 and 5 million years ago come entirely from Africa.During the period of human evolution brain size increased from 400cc to 1400cc. On a number of occasions these hominids migrated out of Africa to Europe and Asia. These include homo erectus and the Neanderthals who evolved in Europe from a large brained hominid from Africa. Though living in the colder regions, the Neanderthals and homo erectus would later be displaced by technologically more advanced immigrants from the warmer regions of Africa, the such as the African Cro-Magnon."

This article is about the evolutionary history of intelligence in the races of Homo sapiens sapiens. Other species are irrelevant.

MoritzB 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Other subspecies are relevant, if they are precursors to modern humans, which they obviously are.--Ramdrake 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Their alleged relevance is OR. And those are different species, not subspecies.

MoritzB 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at least Cro-Magnon was H.S. Sapiens, and many people believe that Neanderthal was either also the same species (different subspecies) or closely related enough that it could interbreed (with a contribution to modern human DNA of 5-25% [5]. So, there is relevance there.--Ramdrake 10:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I slightly altered that paragraph because it gave the wrong impression about the roots of hominid intelligence. It is true that Africa produced the new hominids with larger brains, but that is because Africa produced nearly all of the new hominids, so it invited an unwarranted comparative judgment from the reader. W.M. O'Quinlan 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is irrelevant because no serious scientist claims that the fact that modern humans evolved in Africa has any significance in the IQ differences between populations today. I will modify it more.

MoritzB 06:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And the latest research indicates that the information is also incorrect: Asians appear to have played a larger part in the settlement of Europe than did Africans.

http://www.livescience.com/history/070807_ap_asia_europe.html

MoritzB 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First, your last cite is misquoted, as that's not what the authors are saying. I'd just like to point out this isn't the first source you mis-cite. Second, the information is relevant as background information to understand the evolution of intelligence per se. That's called background information.--Ramdrake 13:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That horribly written paragraph does not help to understand the evolution of intelligence.

The paragraph merely confuses the reader as it implies that Africa would somehow be a better environment for the evolution of intelligence. This incorrect view is not supported by any credible evidence. The paragraph is misplaced and does not have any logical connection to the rest of the section. It has to be removed. Fourdee and other editors happen to agree.

MoritzB 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph merely states that Africa is where large-brained apes (giving rise to humans) first evolved, which I don't think s very controversial at all.--Ramdrake 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that fact is not controversial but it is very irrelevant.

MoritzB 15:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole section on the evolution of IQ maybe off topic. IQ tests were only invented around 1906, any theory regarding IQ before 1906 is entirely speculative. if one wants to discuss ice ages and intelligence then we might as well discuss the evolution of homo sapiens.Muntuwandi 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This article's title violates Wikipedia's no "and" in the title policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TITLE#Use_of_.22and.22

From that page: Do not use "and" to bias article names. For example, the article would be Islamic extremist terrorism, rather than "Islam and terrorism"

In my interpretation the use of the word "and" biases the way this subject is presented. zen master T 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really as it isn't controversial that there are intelligence differences between races. The question is how to explain them.

MoritzB 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"it isn't controversial that there are intelligence differences between races." For sure ! This is of course highly controversial. Ericd

Framing this issue in terms of "race and intelligence" is just one among many possible ways of framing this issue, "wealth and nutrition" is another. You are missing the point of bias in the example above: "Islam and terrorism" biases the subject because some might incorrectly read that as meaning Islam is synonomous with terrorism just as some might incorrectly read "race and intelligence" as meaning race is synonomous with intelligence (neither are true). Given that there are multiple answers and ways of framing this question/issue it should not be framed exclusively around one among many ways, we should find a more generic way of presenting it. Neutrality wise "race and intelligence" biases the presentation of this subject heavily and is a subtle yet profound violation of the principle of neutral presentation. I propose IQ controversy since IQ is a disputed foundation of "intelligence research". zen master T 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No. This article is about the impact of racially varying genotypic and environmental differences on the IQ of individuals.

MoritzB 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before (when you were "Matthew L Foster") and as far as I can tell, you are the only one who is having trouble getting past the title and format of the article. As long as you are going to use the "Islam and Terrorism" precedent, then the natural adjustment to this title wouldn't be to "IQ controversy", rather it would be to something like "Racial differences in measures of intelligence". You already claimed that somehow "wealth and nutrition" is an equally valid way of presenting this issue--which makes no sense given that that is a measure of independently and internally coherent variables--but there is no practical way of adapting this article to something like that without essentially changing what it is about (and just because wealth and nutrition also have correlations to race and intelligence, it does not follow that they are legitimate surrogates for each other). It is clearly not obvious to most other people that there is any bias inherent in the article's current formulation, so your move to drastically overhaul the article is unwarranted. W.M. O'Quinlan 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The validity, correlations, methodologies and implications of IQ testing are disputed, as such the title of any article on this subject should reflect this fact (IQ tests are the foundation of this "research"). All I am saying is "wealth and nutrition" and "race and intelligence" are potential surrogates for the exact same underlying cause for this issue which might not have anything to do with "race", "race" is just one among many ways of describing this issue and since "race" might not be a cause "race" shouldn't be in the title. We should be very very very careful that readers do not confuse description with possible cause. Just because one group of people have chosen to frame a complex issue entirely around "race" does not mean wikipedia has to, and in fact to do so is non neutral. I think it is possible a group of people are intentionally trying to confuse description with cause on this issue for racist purposes. zen master T 21:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree for aforementioned reasons.

MoritzB 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point though. You may not like this breakdown of IQ scores, but what you're really trying to say is that no one (or at least not Wikipedia) should be able to look at the question in terms of the racial manifestations of variation in IQ scores. It isn't a question of what the ultimate underlying cause of the discrepancies is, rather it is a look at one form in which that cause manifests itself. To think that we can't regard the racial aspect of that cause (whatever it may be) as being in any way relevant is a kind of intellectual censorship (it would be like physicists searching solely for the Theory of Everything while dismissing any study of fluid turbulence). You are free to contribute to an article on the relationship between wealth and nutrition or wealth and race, but don't try to say that this particular relationship (between race and IQ scores) is off limits. All it is is a look at one relationship/correlation that is important for everyone; no one but you seems to be confusing the title with some foregone conclusion which you find distasteful. W.M. O'Quinlan 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even all supporters of the environmentalist hypothesis agree that race matters. They blame racism etc.

MoritzB 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not the like/dislike of IQ test results, the issue is assuming IQ test results mean anything which is disputed. Given multiple disputes over a principle foundation of this "research" this subject should not be presented this way if neutral presentation is your goal. zen master T 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Would prehaps "The distribution of specific genes related to intelligence among the human races" be a better... no, lets just stick with race and intelligence. 84.68.62.89 20:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity of race

I seen that MoritzB changed the European to 102 (German) an then to high as 112 (Jewish). It seems wrong since the IQ is the average European IQ, not the range of IQ scores between different ethnic groups in Europe. But there are a lot of races in Europe. "Race" is ambiguous and not well-defined, so some European "races" have an average IQ of 160. We could go on and on and include average IQs of European cities, European families, European people.

Greece, which is still in Europe has an IQ of 92 and some East Asian tribes have an average IQ of 70. Including the average IQ of Europe, East Asia, etc. is the most rational decision.Shinzuru2 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the European IQ shouldn't be adjusted like that, but I don't see that as being due to the ambiguity of race; rather it is methodological flaw. I would like to change that whole paragraph there in the opening, since it doesn't appear to be sourced correctly (e.g. the footnotes don't correspond to any publication by Herrnstein, Murray, or Flynn--only R. Lynn), and furthermore, the article about the IQ and the Wealth of Nations apparently would suggest different overall averages. In any case though, the paragraph doesn't make it clear if it is talking about racial IQ averages or simply some average IQ of a mixture of citizenship, geography, and ethnicity. I called for a verification of the reference (since I don't have immediate access to those sources myself), but in truth that specific breakdown doesn't belong in the introduction. W.M. O'Quinlan 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will improve that paragraph. I think it is very important that those numbers are in the introduction.

MoritzB 18:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear what those numbers say, nor do they reflect any well-established formulation of race found elsewhere in the article. And I'm not sure how important it is that an executive summary of IQ scores appears in the introduction anyway--that would seem a fairly simplistic and ill-conceived way of structuring the article (furthermore, there is some suspect motive in having them there). It suffices to say that there are observed differences in measures of intelligence among the different racial groupings of the world and then simply cite some publication which offers that kind of statement (it shouldn't be hard to find). W.M. O'Quinlan 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good now.

MoritzB 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My question is whether the ambiguity is enough to be statistically significant. There is certainly some difference in how people would classify the race of a given individual. Let's say this affects 1% (just off the cuff) of all people and for the remaining 99% of people everyone would agree on the race. In that case, the fact that race may be a little vague doesn't matter. That's perhaps "original research" on my part, I'm just trying to get a grasp on how much it would matter to the numbers we have. Is there any amount of re-interpretation that would dramatically change these numbers? And aren't we just reporting what a wide array of studies have found and letting the reader decide how useful that information is? Lots of widely cited statistics from many sources report race. Barring some directly useful expert citation that questions the material we have, cramming the political agenda of questioning the very concept of race into this article seems out of place. And I don't think any ambiguity has substantially impacted these numbers. Koreans are Koreans, Ashkenazi Jews are what they are, and blacks, well whether they are blacks in africa or blacks in america, we all know what these people look like well enough to interpret the statistics and have a pretty good idea of how they were measured. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Let's say this affects 1% (just off the cuff) of all people and for the remaining 99% of people everyone would agree on the race." - I assume you mean "of all people sampled." Statistical significance is not a simple matter of percentages, it is a function of sample size and the number of variables you are looking at. I agree that statistical significance, as well as margin of error, are important if we use any statistics at all. And I think the really important number here is the coefficient of correlation, given that the only empirical claim made by thse sources is about a correlation between self-identified race and IQ score ... and then how they interpret that. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, fourdee. According to the US census (2000) the proportion of multiracial people was 2,8%. The number is so low that possible misclassifications don't affect the validity of studies. The transracial adoption studies examining the IQ of mulattoes (socially identified as black) also affirm the validity of racial categories.

MoritzB 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The disputed tag

The tag was added long ago and the article has almost totally changed now. It is now an obsolete relic of past disputes.

I have removed the tag and it should not not be added again without a long, thorough discussion.

The mere controversial nature of the topic is not adequate justification for the tag. Cf. Global Warming MoritzB 11:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro only exposes the reader to one view presented in the article. Thus, it is POV. Brusegadi 20:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Both views are now mentioned.

MoritzB 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This article continues to be disputed. If it were not so, why has MortizB reverted three times every edit in the last 24 hours. Skywriter 11:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Because your edits were simply misguided. There is no dispute of the results of the psychometric studies in question. The dispute is about the cause of the race differences, genetics or the environment?

MoritzB 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to recent edit wars I have restored the tag. There are POV problems in the intro and several sections. Brusegadi 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The IQ scores

It isn't controversial what the average IQ scores of different ethnic/racial groups are. The only dispute is about the cause of the difference. Therefore, the reference to Rushton and Jensen Skywriter added to the intro was removed. MoritzB 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is your tiny minority opinion that what Rushton and Jensen claim is not controversial. Skywriter 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause", Rushton and Jensen write. If you disagree back your opinion with reliable sources.

MoritzB 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, MoritzB is absolutely correct. Intelligence researchers do not dispute this IQ gap; it is well-known and is supported by mountains of data. What is controversial among scientists is what causes it, and honestly, I'm not entirely certain that even -that- is all that controversial. We know SES has an impact on it (this isn't controversial, and is well established), and it seems likely that additionally there is a genetic component to intelligence which may help explain it. However, most scientists don't study racial intelligence issues in depth, and even those who do are often loath to say "Well, this data seems to suggest that Jews may be more intelligent in part due to genetic factors, and blacks may be less intelligent in part due to genetic factors" because they're (rightly) afraid people will brand them racists, demand they be fired, try to cut off their funding, and the black community in general will throw a hissy fit.

The reality is that it is very difficult politically speaking to come out and say it, but if you listen to what people say about books and papers on racial intelligence, you'll hear that they'll say that they don't dispute the IQ differences between blacks and whites and other racial group. They may or may not dispute the conclusions, but they don't dispute the differences, and indeed, reading reviews on some of these books you see that a lot of the people asked don't even deny the conclusions - they just seem not to want to talk about it. Titanium Dragon 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The sections "history" and "scientific racism"

Only the opinions of those scientists who deny the legitimacy of research on race and intelligence are represented in these sections. Thus, they strongly violate WP:NPOV. The article "scientific racism" is just a POV fork. WP:POVFORK. MoritzB 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the mainstream view of most scientists in the field is that "race and intelligence" is a controversial to fringe subject. You can always add alternate views (proportional to their weight), but please don't remove cited views because you disagree with them.--Ramdrake 14:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, can you explain to me how a section of an article can be construed to be a POV fork of the same article? POV fork policy applies only between distinct articles.--Ramdrake 14:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The main article "scientific racism" is a POV fork describing the views of those scholars who don't see research on race and intelligence as legitimate which is a fringe view. In this article the section belongs to the criticism section.

MoritzB 14:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, the article on Scientific racism touches on much more than just race and intelligence. And please, don't mix a bunch of discredited ideas decades if not centuries old with modern research. You're comparing apples and oranges and misleading the reader.--Ramdrake 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article examines the hereditarian model in an inappropriate manner and strongly violates NPOV. The section in this article only constructs a strawman of the hereditarian position using 80 years old studies. It is inappropriate.

And the hereditarian model should be fairly represented also in the history section.

MoritzB 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please supply examples of what you mean. If I see a NPOV violation, I would tend to think that the minority hereditarian position is overrepresented in this article.--Ramdrake 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Many studies that purport to be both science-based and attempt to influence public policy have been criticized for purported scientific racism; the most recent examples of are those of Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein. Melvin Konner, in his book Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit accused Murray and Hernstein of trying to make policy based on speculations about race, and Rushton of applying a theory drawn from evolutionary biology to the difference about races with no academic legitimacy."

This criticism belongs to the explanation section, if anywhere.

MoritzB 16:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The communists are again censoring Wikipedia. Rushton's views of history must be in the main text, not in a footnote. Franz V 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic material clutters article

Contrary to the protestations of Franz V, who is concerned about communism and capitalism, which is off-topic to this article, he also complains that his favorite racist academic is not mentioned often and prominently enough.

Here are the facts--Rushton is mentioned 20 times in this article. His sometimes co-author Jensen is also mentioned 20 times. And, Richard Lynn is named 18 times, and Gottfredson 13 times. That hardly seems like censorship of the pro-racist viewpoint. In fact, their viewpoint is so grossly over-represented, I intend to again slap a disputed tag on this page because it favors racist viewpoints and tends to downplay or exclude anti-racist views.

Now comes Rushton enthusiasts insisting that Rushton's off-topic, throw-away lines be included in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. Christopher Columbus had much to say about the indigenous people of the western hemisphere (before enslaving and/or slaughtering them) and Napolean had much to say about the people of Egypt before he tried and failed to conquer them. Germans had much to say about Jews, and the French have much to say about the English and vice versa. The Protestant Irish have their opinions of Catholic Irish. The Japanese had definite views of the Chinese before the Rape of Nanking. Should all of those opinions be larded into this article? If Rushton's throw-away lines are included either in this article or in two(!) footnotes, then this article should become a free-for-all about what all of the various ethnic groups allege about those they dislike (or revere) the most.

Rushton is not a historian. His comments on Marco Polo etc. are off topic. Please defend why two quotes from Race, Evolution, and Behavior is not off-topic to this article on Race and Intelligence, and should not be removed. Please explain also the exact link between nudity and paganism, which is not explained in this off-topic quote. Skywriter 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the case. Some scholars say that "In the 19th and 20th centuries research on race and intelligence has been used to argue that one race is superior to another, justifying poor outcomes and ill-treatment for the "inferior race".[13] Some early opinions about the differences among races grew out of stereotypes about non-whites developed during the period of colonialism and slavery."

Gould and Gil-White say that those stereotypes were racist and false. However, Rushton says that the basis of the "stereotypes" was the low intelligence of Africans and the primitivity of their societies.

It is certainly relevant that historically Europeans didn't usually think that Chinese people were less intelligent. This information should be in the history section.

MoritzB 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A logical fallacy, a non sequitur. In other words, you skipprf a beat and failed to respond to the questions. You persuade no one that text should be there because it is there. Where are Rushton's proofs to his claim that Africans were of low intelligence during that era? Where is the scholarship? Further, what is the connection to nudity and paganism? Are nudity and paganism race and or intelligence-based? Again, I ask, why is this off-topic material doing in this article? Skywriter 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the blacks have a lower genotypic intelligence today they likely did have a lower genotypic IQ hundreds of years ago, too. There are hundreds of citations in the article supporting the hypothesis that they do have a lower genotypic IQ. And there is historical proof that many Muslims and Europeans also thought that blacks were a less intelligent race also hundreds of years ago. The history section is for historical opinions.

It is also relevant per se that the Europeans did not think that Chinamen are racially inferior.

MoritzB 19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moritz, you're mixing apples and oranges --again. The fact of the matter is that these "hundreds of citations" come from a handful (read: tiny minority) of scientists, most of whom are backed by the Pioneer Fund. You've just so much as admitted that side of the argument is over-represented.--Ramdrake 19:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument is about a specific section in which only one side is represented. It's a truism that the arguments of the hereditarians are coming from a "tiny minority of scientists". The scholars who disagree with them also belong to the tiny minority of scientists who have written on race and intelligence.

Your argument that the hereditarian position does not deserve to be included to the history section is as valid as an argument that it wouldn't deserve to be included to the "explanations" sections.

Thus, your views are rejected by consensus.

MoritzB 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Japanese are a happy race, and being content with little, are not likely to achieve much." -a Western Observer in 1881
"To see your men [Japanese] at work made me feel that you are a very satisfied easy goin race, who reckon time is no object. When I spoke to some managers they informed me that it was simply impossible to change the habits of national heritage." -western observer in 1915
From Landes, Davis S. 1998. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are Rich and Some So Poor. New York: W. W. Norton. p350
This a great example of observer bias. That is why I think that even mentioning the views of early Europeans would be undue weight. It is known that observe bias can cause judgment problems; that is why the effectiveness of new medicines is judged using a control group... Brusegadi 19:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

They are already mentioned, aren't they?

MoritzB 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice and IQ?

That section is offtopic and should be deleted. It has nothing to do with race. Add it to a separate article about prejudice and IQ if you wish. MoritzB 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what you refer to:

A study done at a university known for its conservative values in the south of the US was carried out in order to determine whether a relationship existed between prejudice and IQ. Students were given an IQ test and a test that measures racial prejudice. The study found that students who scored lower on IQ tests were more prejudiced.<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0399529519/ How do you compare pages 28-29] ISBN 0399529519 based on Lapsley and Enright , ' The effect of social desirability, intelligence, and milieu on an American validation of the conservatism scale' </ref>

I took it out because, at least in the way it is included, it is hard to accept it. Brusegadi 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you shouldn't have. Because it has everything to do with this dubious topic. I don't mean it just applies to whites, but also blacks and others. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brusegadi that some major points need to be addressed. The a university known for its conservative values in the south of the US should be replaced by the name of the actual university (to avoid weasel-wording); then an IQ test and a test that measures racial prejudice; I'm not aware of any: IQ tests are meants to measure intelligence, sometimes imperfectly, sometimes in a biased fashion, granted, but an IQ test was never meant to measure racial prejudice, so I'm thinkin the author meant something else. If the paragraph could be rephrased to eliminate these two major issues, I think it would then become suitable for inclusion. I think the point it makes is valid; it jsut can't be phrased this way.--Ramdrake 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree the phrasing needs some work. But to delete it, without expanding on it? I don't kow. I think it is very interesting to include. Oh well. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, someone should work on it as it should be included once properly reworded. But I can't blame Brusegadi for removing it in the state it's in now.--Ramdrake 20:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been established that whites with lower SES have more contact with blacks and are more prejudiced. People with lower SES have lower IQs on average. The study isn't interesting and has nothing to do with this article.

MoritzB 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On a more general note, I feel that this article is not properly framed. When I first read it I did not care too much about it because I was under the impression that its title was "Race and IQ." Yet, since it is intelligence and not IQ, much work has to be done since there are obvious POV problems. I think the mainstream view is that there is really no good proxy for intelligence given that the latter can manifest itself in so many different ways. Finally, if some of the papers speak of a connection between genes and intelligence; these genetic components may not be correlated with race. It must be quoted explicitly. Besides the problems with undue weight, we must also look out for WP:SYN. Brusegadi 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what evidence do you have that the "mainstream" doesn't consider IQ to be a good proxy for intelligence? You're absolutely wrong! The mainstream scientific community considers it to be a good proxy (or at least a useful one) for intelligence; it correlates well and is used as such by a large number of researchers. Indeed, complaints about IQ tests and similar often originate from people who -want- to believe that everyone is equal, rather than from actual data, which supports the value of IQ as a proxy for intelligence.

Nope; they use it at most for logical stuff. Thus, assuming that IQ tests can serve as a strictly increasing monotonic map between your ability to do logic and your score then IQ tests would be necessary but not sufficient in establishing a subject's intelligence. Notice the title of the article is not Race and IQ but Race and Intelligence. Brusegadi 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also support using other proxies for intelligence in the article; SAT scores, for instance. There are plenty of them, and they all seem to point the same way.

Using IQ is NOT undue weight. It is an excellent and often used intelligence proxy, and there is absolutely no reason for us not to rely on it when people who do intelligence research DO rely on it and similar tests.

I am not saying that we should not use it. I say that counter views should be given their proper weight in the article. Brusegadi 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And many things DO suggest that the intelligence differential is genetic in nature; SES certainly lowers IQ scores, but once you compensate for it you find that there are still intelligence gaps between races in the US, particularly between blacks and hispanics and whites and asians (and Jews, who are on the other end of the spectrum). When you're studying intelligence differences between races, and finding them even after SES compensation, this suggests genetic linkage. Suggestions of genetic linkages to explain these differences are certainly tossed around, but people don't like talking about it because a lot of people automatically brand them as racists rather than scientists, as is evident from the black community's reaction to such research. Titanium Dragon 03:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BS detectors sounding

MoritzB 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) wrote:

It has been established that whites with lower SES have more contact with blacks and are more prejudiced. People with lower SES have lower IQs on average.

No such thing "has been established". I note your use of the passive voice to avoid identifying the source of your claim. Passive voice has long been the purview of rogues and scoundrels...mistakes were made; others will be blamed.

I have twice asked you to show the sourcing for the claim of your boy Rushton that nudity and paganism is unique to Black Africans. And twice you have ignored the request. This is the third and final request to back up the provably false allegation. It is NOT acceptable to hide behind the skirt of "opinion" in the history section. History is made up of facts. Anyone can state opinion and that does not translate into inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Anyone can express opinion on subjects about which they know nothing. Shockley got into trouble for crossing over into a field where he lacked expertise. If you and Rushton lack facts to back up Rushton's contention, that section comes out. Stop wasting our time.Skywriter 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is your job to provide a citation which says that Rushton is wrong as Rushton's book is a reliable source.

But indeed, nudity and paganism were not unique traits of black Africans. Rushton didn't say so.

MoritzB 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I don't think this article needs to be protected, at least not for a long period. The only editor who is advocating removal of information is MoritzB. All the other editors have accepted the inclusion of the information that MoritzB has included even though some of it is really of very poor quality (eg evolution of IQ ) and is outside of the mainstream. But MoritzB is not being fair in accepting other information from other editors. Muntuwandi 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, your addition to the section about the evolution of intelligence was offtopic. "Cavalli himself has made significant contributions to the fight against racism...."

You may have made your contributions in good faith but issues like "IQ and prejudice" simply aren't relevant. I have tried to explain this to you with fourdee.

MoritzB 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of Cavalli is to clarify that he does not endorse the racial theories of IQ proposed by Jensen et al. The statement-

Gerhard Meisenberg argues that measurements of genetic diversity by the population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the difference in “genotypic” intelligence between the most divergent human populations caused by random genetic drift should be about 12 IQ points.[95]

This statement is not endorsed by Cavalli, So we do not know how Meisenberg arrives at this figure of 12 points IQ difference. It appears that either Meisenberg's made this up or it is original research. Consequently it should either be removed or attributed to Meisenberg himself and not Cavalli. In which case we would have to prove that Meisenberg is an expert in population genetics to stand as a Reliable source. Muntuwandi 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really prove anything if Cavalli-Sforza debated Shockley as a younger man in the 1970s. Cavalli-Sforza hadn't even done the research Meisenberg refers to at that time. Furthermore, the statement that "Cavalli made significant contributions in the fight against racism" when he debated Shockley and Jensen does not conform to WP:NPOV because it implies that Shockley and Jensen were racists.

MoritzB 23:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your source Supra, 67 p. 190 is an inadequate citation. There is no way anyone can independently verify this source. Would you blame me for thinking it is a dubious source. Muntuwandi 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct form of the citation would now be: Supra 84, p.190" and it refers to "Gerhard Meisenberg: IQ Population Genetics: It’s not as Simple as You Think, p 190"

MoritzB 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

this is the actual statement:

If IQ genes float as randomly in the gene pool as Cavalli-Sforza’s DNA variations, then the difference in “genotypic” intelligence between the most divergent human populations should be about as great as the measured difference between black and white children in California: about 12 IQ points.

This is a hypothetical situation, only if IQ genes float randomly. Muntuwandi 23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There is evidence that the genotypic IQ is approximately normally distributed. It is the central assumption of the book Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, for instance.

MoritzB 00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Genotypically the difference between the various "races" is 6-10% of the 0.1% difference and not 14%. [6]. The figure is actually 15% percent and refers to two random populations, such as the Kikuyu and the Dutch. When overall the continental races are considered the figure drops to 6-10%. This is of course averaged over many traits. For individual traits the difference could be more or non-existent. For example skin color variation is 88% between the races. But the gene that gives everybody 2 arms and two legs has no variation across the races since people in all races generally have two arms and two legs. Between these two types of traits we do not know where intelligence fits in. Without the knowledge of the actual genes that positively influence IQ, it is impossible to tell and is mere speculation on behalf of Meisenberg.

Muntuwandi 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as most scientists agree that there is normally distributed genotypic variation in IQ between individuals.

MoritzB 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you not know that one can up their score on an IQ test, if they keep an open mind, read more, and continue education? IQ is not static. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On other proxies

I will try to look for more recent data on IQs. We may also look into other proxies. Brusegadi 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There was much debate earlier on regarding alternative theories on intelligence such as the Theory of multiple intelligences, see Talk Archive 57. There was a section on autistic savants for example who have low IQs but are very intelligent in one specific area. This information I believe should be reinstated. Muntuwandi 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory of multiple intelligences might as well be "the theory that we don't want to admit that people are actually innately inferior intellectually"; intelligent people are and can become good at everything, whereas dumber people -can't-; I'm not making this up, studies have shown this. And while IQ is a (pretty good) way of measuring intelligence, it is not perfect. However, its not like "blacks are dumber than whites" just arises from IQ scores; if you look at success, attitude towards intellectualism, intellectual achievements, ect. it is evident there is a major achievement gap which goes beyond differences in socioeconomic status and extend to the point where one has to question whether there is a genetic constituent for the data. Titanium Dragon 03:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Kevin Murray deleted most of that material which was very appropriate. It should not be reinstated.

MoritzB 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is so untrue, intelligent people cannot be good at everything. When was the last time you heard of a computer geek winning an olympic gold medal for athletics. It is well documented that many other skills are required for success. IQ is a good predictor of intelligence associated with logic only. But other skills are also important. Recruitment companies don't just dish out IQ tests, they now have a barrage of personality tests that they unleash on prospects. Certain profiles are more suitable for certain positions. Two people with the same IQ may not be suitable for the same position if they have different personality profiles. There are other forms of intelligence that are at play. Muntuwandi 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Savants are indeed relevant, even Arthur Jensen discusses them Conversations with Arthur Jensen Muntuwandi 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jensen mentions them as an unusual exception which is not statistically relevant.

MoritzB 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to savant syndrome, Stephen Juan concludes

No model of brain function, particularly memory will be complete until it can include and account for the syndromeThe Odd Brain.

Muntuwandi 03:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, this is false; IQ is measuring something different than what you think. It is measuring something very closely related to how efficiently your brain works - IQ scores often directly correlate with reaction time. Whites and asians have on average much faster and larger brains than sub-saharan africans. They have faster reaction time too - I forget the exact numbers but as I remember this is a significant one. This is not about "nerds" it is about regular people who may be a little quicker at figuring some things out in daily life. Caucasian and asian women have high IQs (same as males as far as I know) but their brains are definitely differently structured than men and they are accomplishing it in a somewhat different manner - at any rate, brain size isn't the only factor but that is a significant part of explaining why these groups with larger brains have uniformly higher iq, better reaction time, and a history of accomplishment. It doesn't take a scientist to observe this difference between the races. The practical implications of these facts are for the reader to decide (and please keep your political propaganda out), but the basic facts are pretty cut and dry. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is I have provide sources and you have provided your personal opinion. Muntuwandi 03:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, please define with references what you meant by "much larger". According to many studies, there are no significant differences in brain size between "races", or if there are, they are very small indeed [7]. What are your references for such an enormous statement?--Ramdrake 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

East Asians have a cranial capacity of 1,364 cm3, Whites 1,347 cm3 and Blacks 1,267 cm3. The reference is in the article.MoritzB 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be in the article but it's false. Therefore should be removed. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A reference is provided.

MoritzB 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB don't forget the Neanderthals at a whopping 1400 -1750cc[8]. Muntuwandi 03:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So what?MoritzB 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, please don't cherry-pick. Lieberman produces a whole table of researchers who have found various results, only to demonstrate that those "averages" which differ were demonstrably biased. The numbers you're producing are from one of Rushton's meta-analyses, perhaps the most severely criticized for its many biases and failure to correct these biases. Those who didn't find significant differences didn't show any obvious bias. And in any case, what is a difference of 100 cm3 when the normal brain size in humans has a range from 1000-2000 cm3? (All of this is in fact sourced to the Lieberman paper I cited earlier, so please don't ask again).--Ramdrake 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The correlation between IQ and brain size between individuals is 0.40. Thus, it is very reasonable to expect that race differences in brain size matter.

MoritzB 04:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is according to Rushton, who is severely criticized for his methodology. And again, researchers with no demonstrable bias in their analyses (such as Beals et al. in their 1985 study) found no racially oriented differences in brain size. And again, you're drawing unwarranted conclusions (it is very reasonable to expect that race differences in brain size matter).--Ramdrake 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That study reported that East Asians, Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3, respectively. (Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. "Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines," Current Anthropology, 1984: 25, 301-330)

The differences were even larger.

MoritzB 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's Rushton's interpretation of it. Beals et al's interpretation is that cranial differences are along clinal temperature lines, and not along racial lines. Please don't use other researchers' interpretations of someone else's research, especially when the reinterpretation is in conflict with the original conclusions, Rushton is notorious for that.--Ramdrake 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Beals and Smith included a classification based on geographic areas to the study.

Beals and Smith say that "hominid expansion to northern climates produced a change in head shape. Such change in head shape contributed to the increased cranial volume." This is consistent with Lynn's theory of the evolution of intelligence. Beals and Smith are saying that Northern populations have genotypically larger brains which in light of other studies implies that Northern populations have a higher average genotypic IQ.

MoritzB 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG, this is bollocks on MoritzB's side, and others with this view. Brain size is not relevant to IQ. You are going back in time to Scientific racism when people where playing ignorant to justify that blacks and other were inferior to so that it wouldn't be considered as unethical. See: Einstein's brain, there was no difference in size. (if it hasn't been fiddled with since the last time I viewed the article.) - Jeeny ^Talk 04:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was one man who was good at certain things. What we are trying to look at is the average people in whole populations, not what features an exceptional person has. The question for this article is about whole races and ethnic groups. There are many smart people with average size brains, however on average it does seem to offer some benefit at both the individual and ethnic level. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Says who? - Jeeny ^Talk 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See above. The only scientific studies available have always reflected this. There are many. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For instance, this study proved that Turkish men who have larger brains have a higher average IQ. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713740779~db=all

The correlation is 0.40.

MoritzB 04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:SOAP. Lets get serious or move it to user space. Brusegadi 05:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Argue?

No one will change their minds with this pointless arguing. We have to understand that all of us have already made up our minds about this. It seems that right now we are trying to argue with each other as oppose to for the improvement of the article. The truth is that nothing will change in the next few days because the article is protected. So, lets try to cool off and focus on specific things that we would like changed, removed, or added. Lets try to produce something that is good enough so that people from the outside will take it seriously. If any of us pushes their own POV beyond its due weight, the article will be a joke to outsiders. Brusegadi 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. But, when arguing POVs, sometimes, as it has for me, I've been able to open my mind and see the other side, and then reassess my own views, by doing more research. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While some studies find a correlation between brain size and IQ, ie correlation of 0.4, which explains 16% of the variance. While this may have some statistical significance this still leaves plenty of room for a small brained genius and a large brained dullard. Geniuses have been known with a cranial capacity of 1000cc, about the size of a homo erectus brain. This correlation is however viewed as a gross oversimplification. Hominid brain size peaked about 500,000 years ago with the Neanderthals. Since then human brain size has shrunk, while human complexity has increased in the period. This suggests that human cognition was achieved through the an improvement in brain software rather than any further increase in brain hardware. Furthermore there are several problems with measuring brain size, what exactly is the brain is disputed. There is a lot of filler material that goes into the cranial vault, so having a big head does not necessarily imply a larger brain. Another complication is that some assert that brain size needs to be adjusted for body weight and sex. The studies that have been cited are not clear with regards to these assertions. A further problem is that women have smaller cranial capacities than men yet have the same IQ scores with men. Finally most variation in cranial capacity occurs within a "race" rather than between the "races".Muntuwandi 06:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just quickly: it's not accurate to say that human brain sizes have shrunk. The significant new type(s) that evolved in recent times have larger brains - asians and europeans. The difference in the structure of women's brains is well documented and doesn't affect what IQ tests measure. The question is: given two people of the same gender, and ideally of the same ethnic background to eliminate ethnic differences in brain structure, is there is a slight statistical likelihood that the one with the larger brain is more intelligent and a little quicker? Yes. Does this mean an ethnic group (or the female gender) that has a different structure is necessary less smart because its brains are more compact? Not necessarily but can you show any examples of this being true? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is well documented that human brain sizes have shrunk. The Neanderthals have the largest brains of all hominids as large as 1750 cc. Even more recently brain sizes have shrunk;

Although selective pressure in favor of smaller brain volumes might seem counterintuitive, it is relevant to note that the fossil record suggests that brain size in humans has decreased over the past 50 000 years, with the trend continuing through the Neolithic, reversing more recently only at higher latitudes [9] Muntuwandi 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Even the Cro-Magnons the first Europeans had cranial capacities greater than modern Europeans [10]. Muntuwandi 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern europeans are related to cro-magnons, what's the point? Neanderthals were a different creature that had a more primitive brain - differences in structure are definitely critical to how efficient a brain is at a certain size, like the difference between men and women of course. Perhaps the more evolved ethnic groups have some features like that as well, but they certainly have larger brains and higher measured intelligence than other modern humans (whose brains all have a more efficient design than neanderthal's).

It may seem confusing that all a person has to do to be smarter is have a bigger brain so why doesn't every ethnic group select for one - however you can readily see the forces at play in picking the best brain size. A bigger brain is physically awkward, delays maturity, consumes more energy, is vulnerable to attack, may cause excessive cautiousness (due to foreseeing consequences) which can be a significant disadvantage if it is a common trait in a population - brain size of course offers a number of advantages as well, however these are mitigated by the fact that there is by no means a linear return on increasing brain size - a person with a substantially larger brain only tends to be slightly smarter than average. So different populations have a balance established by their particular behaviors and needs (and this extends to many more traits than intelligence and appearance - like behavior in general). Anyway, the most successful modern groups seem to have arrived at a brain size in the higher range of what is normal for modern humans. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that during the period of the greatest technological developments, brain size has been smaller. Neolithic and iron age brains are smaller than paleolithic brains. The brain size of modern europeans is smaller than their ancestors the cro-magnons. consequently it seems that there are so many other factors involved in intelligence than cranial capacity alone. Muntuwandi 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What probably happened at the points when brain sizes shrunk was that a new innovation in brain structure was propagating. This is a tangental concern, and is of course another important factor in intelligence. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, It should be noted that the Neolithic revolution and the iron age occurred independently in Europe, Asia and Africa. Muntuwandi 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi's first comment on this page is enough to end the discussion on cranial capacity. Also, I do not think it is worth getting into human evolution. It is clear that whatever genetic variation there is among humans, all humans belong to the same species and have the same general intelligence that distinguishes humans from other species. I am not even sure it is worth noting that the neolithic revolution accured independently in different continents - for one thing (personal opinion coming up) I think that the paleolithic itself is what really distinguishes humans from non-humans. Second, it doesn't really matter who invented something if other people can use it. This is the whole point of human intelligence - our ability to teach and learn from one another. Even if agriculture was invented independently in Asia, whoever invented it taught it to others. Even if it were invented in Europe, most Europeans learned it from others. If one person can teach another calculus or quantum mechanics, does it mater which one is from Africa and which one is from Europe? They both must be pretty damn smart! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your views are phenomenally fringe. The APA report explicitly states that humans do not have the same general intelligence.

MoritzB 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not understand what I am talking about. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is your argument is that because all humans are so much more intelligent than animals IQ differences between humans do not matter?

MoritzB 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, but you are on the right track. I would not say humans are more intelligent than animals only because I don't think that kind of statement is very meaningful in evolutionary terms - I would say that humans have evolved a fundamentally different kind of intellegence than animals, and that absent congenital birth defects or trauma to the brain all humans have this kind of intelligence that distinguishes us from other species. I do not think that this means that all humans express equal intelligence, I am not fundamentally opposed to attempts to measure intelligence, and I think that discussions attempting to understand differences in expressions of human intelligence among individuals can be valuable. I only meant that since all humans have the same kind of intelligence in the sense that we evolved a kind of evolution distinct from other species, I do not think that there is any point in getting into how that intelligence evolved in this article. In other words, I would see a value in an article on the evolution of human intelligence, "human intelligence" in this context meaning something shared by all humans and distinct from the kinds of intelligence found in other species. And I see a value in an article reviewing debates over variations within "human intelligence, variations in measures of intelligence among humans. My point is: I think these are two different articles, two different topics, and we would progress further if we didn't get bogged down in one while working on the other. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The section is more accurately about the evolutionary background of the IQ differences between human races. If there are genotypic IQ differences between human races there is need for an explanation how they evolved. Several scholars have published articles in academic journals about possible explanations. They are relevant.

MoritzB 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, this is where we disagree: there are measurable differences in IQ between human "races". There are a few researchers who believe these differences are significantly or mostly genotypic. However, most researchers (as per the APA statement) believe that genes have little, if anything, to do with the observed difference.--Ramdrake 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We have had the discussion about the significance of the APA report, the Snyderman study etc. before. The section is intended for notable POVs about why there are genotypic differences in intelligence between human races (or populations) or why they don't exist. Scientists in both "camps" use arguments related to evolutionary history.

MoritzB 12:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree with SLR that this discussion should end, I would just like to point out that the supposition bigger brains==smarter is hopelessly simplistic. It fails to take into account a lot of research, both in humans and in animals on other biological variables to intelligence: the brain size/body mass ratio is just one (probably the best-known) which accounts for the fact that a more massive body requires a larger brain to make it function. That was exemplified in non-humans in some bird species (manatees among others, if menory serves correctly) which under careful behavioral (ethological) studies, turned out to be far more intelligent than expected. Then, there is brain complexity, whether it be the cortex/glial matter ratio or the granular/agranular cortex ratio. Dolphins have brains significantly larger than ours, even when body mass is factored into the equation. It seems that the fact that a much larger portion of their cortex is agranular (lower synaptic connection density) rather than granular might be a good part of the explanation as to why they never developed technology as we know it (although they are expert tool users when they need to, and have a very complex social structure). In order to tie larger brains with possible higher intelligence, one would have to compare body/brain mass ratio, glial/cortical matter ratio, granular/agranular cortex ratio, even down to demonstrating that the enlarged areas are indeed associated with higher cognition and/or mental processing. I'm not aware that any one study has done all that. Rather, all we have are empirical studies that conclude "gee, these folks have bigger brains and score higher on IQ charts, so bigger brains must mean smarter people". Empirical, but not deeply scientfic.--Ramdrake 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes yes, Raqmdrake, with all due respect, so you and Muntuwandi both know what you are talking about. Genug, basta, makatei, move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't resist deconstructing the racialists' preferred argument in the race and intelligence debates. You're right, though. Circulez, y'a rien à voir! :)--Ramdrake 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but all current research on brain size and intelligence accounts for other biological variables like brain size/body mass ratio. That was just a strawman. MoritzB 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're dead wrong. While several studies have tried to take into consideration the brain/body mass ration, I'm not aware of many that focused on what this extra brain matter was (glia/agranular cortex/granular cortex, etc) or where it was located (medullar vs limbic vs cortical, sensory vs associative vs motor, etc), and I don't recall one that has investigated all those questions (as it requires very sophisticated equipment). But can we get back to the matter at hand and stop digressing, as SLR pointed out already twice?--Ramdrake 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You actually make no attempt in explaining why there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence when variables such as body size is controlled. Are you saying that although blacks have smaller brains their brains are in some other respects superior?

MoritzB 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that smaller brain size (on the order of what some researchers believe they observe), even when corrected for body size, has no demonstrated impact on intelligence. What some researchers claim to have found is a correlation; nobody can claim causation (i.e. your claim that, having smaller brains, Blacks are thus less intelligent). Now, can we please get back to discussing the article, and not the subject of the article?--Ramdrake 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. See: "The relation of IQ (Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test) to brain size was studied in 103 right- and left-handed men and women at Ataturk University in eastern Turkey. Cerebral areas were measured on a midsagittal section of the brain using MRI. An overall correlation of 40 was found between MRI-measured total area and IQ thereby further supporting the IQ¯brain size hypothesis. Additional analyses suggested that these results may need qualification. In men, only anterior cerebral area correlated with IQ. In women, total and posterior cerebral areas were correlated with IQ."

Tan, Uner and Tan, Meliha and Polat, Pinar and Ceylan, Yasar and Suma, Selami and Okur, Adnan (1999) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Brain Size/IQ Relations in Turkish University Students. Intelligence 27(1):pp. 83-92.

The relationship is relevant.

MoritzB 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the development of human intelligence: Human intelligence is tied in some manner to the large increase in brain size going up the human evolutionary tree. When the encephalization quotient (EQ) is used to measure brain size relative to body size, modern humans are three times as encephalized (EQ = 6) as other primates (EQ = 2) and six times the average for all living mammals (EQ = 1, the reference group). This phylogenetic increase represents a disproportionate expansion of the brain’s prefrontal cortext, which matures last and is most essential for the highest cognitive functions, including weighing alternatives, planning, understanding the temporal order of events (and thus cause-and-effect relations), and making decisions. Moreover, encephalization of the human line proceeded rather quickly, in evolutionary terms, after the first hominids (Australopithicines, EQ = 3) split off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees (EQ = 2) about 5 million years ago. Encephalization was especially rapid during the last 500,000 to one million years, when relative brain size increased from under EQ = 4 for Homo erectus (arguably the first species of Homo) to about EQ = 6 for living humans (the only surviving subspecies of Homo sapiens). (Gottfredson: Innovation, Fatal Accidents, and the Evolution of General Intelligence) MoritzB 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a problem with any of the material in this paragraph. It's just not relevant to the POV you are asserting in your statement above.--Ramdrake 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is as it debunks the POV of those scholars who say that if brain size differences don't cause IQ differences in modern humans the evolution of human intelligence cannot be related to the increasing IQ.

MoritzB 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

African IQ

I think it's rather intellectualy dishonest to constantly push africans off as, er, "retarded" in face of things like this:

http://www.thecoupmagazine.com/content/view/45/47/

"Another difference that commentators writing on the study noted, though that was not explicitly stated in the study, involves work ethic. As a direct result of pressure to succeed, many black immigrants, much like immigrants from other nations, outperform their American peers. According to U.S. census data from 2000, “black immigrants from Africa averaged the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country,” with 43.8% of African immigrants having attained a degree at an institution of higher learning in comparison to 42.5% of Asian-Americans, 28.9% of immigrants from Europe and Canada, and 23.1 of the entire U.S. population (Page, "Black Immigrants Collect"). In addition, black immigrants make up 40% of the black student population enrolled in Ivy League education institutions, while they only comprise 13 percent of the black population in the United States as a whole (Wu, "Immigrants Comprise"). "

Bare in mind that immigrants don't get affirmative action. If the average african IQ were that low, or even somewhere in the 70's, people like this would be rare to non-existant.