Talk:Race and intelligence

Inclusion of Rindermann survey

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

---

The peer-reviewed literature "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests" quite literally does represent the general scientific consensus, as it is a survey of the general consensus of scientific experts. This is the opposite of WP:FRINGE. First, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence

the above link does discuss Rindermann, but in the context of supporting Lynn's or others' work, as opposed to being used soley on its own. Second, the consensus on Rindermann, if existent, is that the survey is reliable. This has already been discussed, please see the link above. Also, Rindermann's other works or personal views are irrelevant to the peer-reviewed survey which doesn't describe and is not relevant to Rindermann's own views. --DishingMachine (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)DishingMachine

I will consider adding this information back if there is no valid reason why it shouldn't be included. --DishingMachine (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)DishingMachine

This survey of Rindermann's has been discussed quite a bit, both in the RFC and in the archives of this talk page. If you've read those discussions, I don't know how you could think that consensus is for the reliability of that source or that it should be included in this article, it is quite the opposite. - MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:MrOllie. The rfc (the link) clearly states in its decision that "There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above."

(And in the the Rinderman source, the response rate from researchers questioned was only 20%). One primary source is not enough to support a claim of consensus (reliable secondary sources are preferred). And Rinderman and Becker's (the co-author's) associations with fringe researchers and journals (as also discussed) are relevant to their reliability (or lack thereof). Skllagyook (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

DishingMachine's stance is reasonable. The use of "consensus" as an argument for why a study bringing forth opposing information to the article should not be included is not logical. Consensus does not mean or imply truth, argument from consensus is a logical fallacy, just because a large amount of people believe or say something as one particular thing or way does not mean it's inherently truthful. Chinese and Russian researchers nearly fully accept race as a valid biological classification, yet because there's a harsh stance on the validity of race within the West, it must then be untrue and the researchers within the East are somehow inherently wrong. There's no reason not to include a study published on a site that other studies within the article are pulled from. There seems to be a bias against almost all opposing information in regards to race on Wikipedia. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nonethless, Wikipedia is run by WP:CONSENSUS. And the consensus is that the sources broadly indicate it is a fringe theory. More generally, per WP:RS, Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. One study isn't a good source. And this is one line from one study (the abstract doesn't actually reflect the line that's being extracted from it), making the way it's being used here extremely WP:UNDUE. Beyond that, it does not say anything remotely resembling what it is being cited for (even if it was a usable source, it is careful to note its limitations and does not say the current scientific consensus is that both genetics and the environment explain that national and continental differences in IQ - it specifically states that it is a very narrow and limited survey of a small number of academics in a limited context, without arguing that it is a representative sample that demonstrates broader scientific consensus.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Relying on a logical fallacy to base the construction of an article off of is still nonsensical and illegitimate. What a group of editors have to say on an information divulging website in regards to legitimately important topics is irrelevant, their purpose is to provide information and sources, not make decisions on the validity of an argument or topic. The study itself still states that, “Around 90% of experts believed that genes had at least some influence on cross-national differences in cognitive ability.” Are the perspectives of the experts interviewed now incorrect because of what a website editor has to say? History is ripe with mistakes of using the “consensus” as a way to argue, whether it be the arguments over the geocentric and heliocentric models of the Solar System, or Wegener’s theory of continental drift, which was largely disregarded by the “scientific consensus” at the time. The acknowledgement of each side’s argument and evidence provided is needed. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If it isn't fair to say "the current scientific consensus is that both genetics and the environment explain that national and continental differences in IQ," then how about we include the source using only direct quotes? --DishingMachine (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)DishingMachine

• As an aside (just to centralize discussions), note that DishingMachine has also attempted to add this source to The Bell Curve as well. The same problems apply there - trying to put WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single line from a single study of no particular note or significance, by a WP:FRINGE author (Rindermann is a contributor to the scientific racism journal Mankind Quarterly, among other things.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

My reasons for adding that information is, in my view, completely valid on The Bell Curve page. Your use of WP:UNDUE doesn't match what Wikipedia says WP:UNDUE means, and you said the article "doesn't mention this book, making it WP:SYNTH," however the article does mention the book, albeit briefly. In addition, it is a follow up to a study on that page that has its own section, so it is definitely relevant and not synthesis. This is pretty irrelevant to this article, though. Rindermann's contributions to other journals are not remotely relevant as we are talking about a peer-reviewed, multiple-authored survey that discusses the views of other scientists, not Rindermann.--DishingMachine (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)DishingMachine

Rindermann still provides evidence for his contributions to journals, and he has his credentials. The academic journal Frontiers In Psychology must have found the study legitimate enough to publish, along with NCBI adding it to its database. Are James Dewey Watson's contributions to biology and genetics now discarded because he stated that genetics has an influence on cognitive differences between races? Shall his Nobel Prize be rescinded? Reaper1945 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

James Watson's views on race were definitely fringe views, as are Rindermann's. What their credentials or writings are in other areas is irrelevant to this discussion. As pointed out repeatedly in this thread and the edit summaries, all of this has been discussed before at great length, leading to a consensus of editors on the fringe nature of theories that claim that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence. This does not have to be re-litigated every time an editor comes along who disagrees with this consensus. NightHeron (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The "consensus" obviously has flaws in its decision-making process, subjective opinions are driving the conversation instead of an actual acknowledgment of what both sides are presenting. Science is open-ended and ever expanding, not at all is it solely about being one perspective and one perspective only. Discarding data that does not align with the model is illogical and without merit. If data throughout history was always discarded because it went against the mainstream point of view, then there would surely be a lack of reasonable theories and perspectives found in the scientific community today. Reaper1945 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Reaper1945, If you'd like to overhaul Wikipedia's decision making process, the place to do that is Wikipedia_talk:Consensus. Such arguments are off topic here. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussing consensus hardly seems off topic considering it's being used as the main way of arguing in this discussion. Nevertheless, it is still a logical fallacy. Reaper1945 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is our fundamental model for editorial decision making. It is relevant to every discussion, which is why it is only appropriate to debate it at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus, as MrOllie has rightly indicated. Failing to accept this is essentially admitting that one is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that because one disagrees, they must have malicious intent in what they do, which is untrue, unless objectively proven. Pointing out that relying on consensus is a logical fallacy itself is not "failing to accept" anything, it's how it is regardless of a website's perspective on the issue. Is a dissenting point of view objectively failing to "collaboratively build an encyclopedia"? Reaper1945 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Poorly-framed attempts at a "gotcha" are not appropriate, and neither is casting aspersions by misrepresenting what other people are saying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a high school debate club, so logical fallacies cannot be a winning "tactic" here. Further, this no longer has anything to do with improving the article. So yes, your attempt to derail the discussion can be fairly described as failing to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no attempt at a "gotcha", your assumption is equally distasteful and inappropriate. Wikipedia is a website which provides information to readers, not a website that has the ultimate say on highly contested and discussed topics within scientific and academic communities. Wikipedia not being a "high school debate club", does not exclude it from criticism over the use of logical fallacies. Regardless of what Wikipedia is called, the use of logic and avoiding the use of logical fallacies is universal, so your quip about what Wikipedia is, is ignorant. The argument is still over the integration of a study into the article, nothing has been derailed or off course, when it's still about whether or not to include the study. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear (before moving on from this topic, hopefully forever): Consensus is a method of decision-making. Consensus doesn't make things true, and no one here is claiming that. Claiming that we're claiming that, and therefore that we're guilty of committing a logical fallacy, is a silly misrepresentation. We use logic here all the time. But knowing how to say words like "logic" and "fallacy" doesn't give you super-powers to overturn existing consensus. Before disengaging I will suggest that you take a look at the essay WP:TRUTH. It's not a binding policy like WP:CONS but it's got a lot of community buy-in nonetheless. And who knows, it might even make you think. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that making disingenuous remarks seems to be a favorite of editors on here during a serious discussion. No one stated that knowing the basic tenets of logical reasoning would give them super-powers to do things that other's couldn't, it's widely known. One would hope that an editor in an intelligence section would know that. No need to make offhand remarks about what someone may be doing or thinking either. No insults or questionably appropriate remarks were made towards opposing parties by the dissenting parties in this discussion, the same should be able to be said for the opposing party. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But we aren't discussing Rindermann's views. We are discussing survey results which do not involve Rindermann. Peer-review is brutal. The survey results are legitimate science. Additionally, if editors are frequently disagreeing with what you think the consensus is, then perhaps it isn't the consensus. To quote Andrew Nguyen: "Wikipedia must follow what high quality sources say. No amount of arguing about whether something is racist or not on page talks can overrule what reliable sources say." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DishingMachine (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Please see the following page before saying that Rindermann should be removed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content."

To highlight the important part:

"The NPOV policy. . . does not forbid properly sourced bias."

This page aligns excellently with the definition of a NPOV issue.--DishingMachine (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV, it is usually possible to find sources which imply support for WP:FRINGE views. This is an obscure, disputable source which is being used to imply something contrary to the rest of the article. This is one part of what makes it a fringe position. Implying academic support for a fringe view would be a form of editorial bias, and per NPOV, this would be a valid reason to remove said content.

For this and many other reasons already explained, these surveys are unlikely to gain consensus. As for "peer review", since you are also editing the Mankind Quarterly article, you should know that it's not a trump card. There are many peer-reviewed sources (including but not limited to Mankind Quarterly) which are "peer reviewed" but also unreliable. Frontiers in Psychology was, among other issues, part of Beall's List, so there plenty of red-flags here. I'm also seeing MDPI's Psych being used recently. That's the successor to OpenPsych, and should be treated accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Ashkenazi Jews

@NightHeron: Could you please explain why you feel that a section on the Ashkenazi Jews is WP:UNDUE and out of place? Their high average IQ is well-documented, and the argument that this developed due to genetic selection is compelling and highly relevant to the article, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources. Stonkaments (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments:: Let me recall that you've already been informed (please see my comment on your user talk-page this past 6 Oct) about the consensus achieved at the RfC on Race and Intelligence at [1]. The result of that RfC was that the view that some races are genetically superior to other races in intelligence is a fringe POV. We already discussed this once in connection with Heiner Rindermann, and there's no need to re-discuss it. NightHeron (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes I am aware of the WP:FRINGE determination. But there seems to be some misunderstanding on this page of what exactly WP:FRINGE does and doesn't imply. For example, Generalrelative said in a previous discussion, The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year. [2] This seems to be a misreading of WP:FRINGE—nowhere does it state that sources containing a fringe view are inadmissible.

Specifically, being a fringe POV doesn't imply that the content is not suitable for the article, as long as it is notable (per independent reliable sources) and presented in proper context, without undue weight. I believe my addition met all of these criteria, as the study concerning Ashkenazi Jews' intelligence was published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal, has been cited 262 times according to Google Scholar, and covered in numerous independent media outlets.[3][4][5][6]

Indeed, we have an entire section of the article dedicated to "Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences", so clearly there is some agreement that such content is relevant and notable, despite the WP:FRINGE consensus. Maybe the information on Ashkenazi Jews would better fit in that section? Stonkaments (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(added after Generalrelative's comment below) Concerning your specific point above, the section "Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences" explains in some detail the methodological fallacies that mainstream scientists have found in the various theories about genetic racial superiority/inferiority. It also explains the difference between genetic theories of individual variation and genetic theories of group differences. The section does not give credence to the latter racialist theories; to do so would violate WP:FRINGE. What you proposed to add states that Azhkenazi Jews were "selected for intelligence" starting in medieval Europe; this suggests a genetic role in the IQ scores, which is a fringe POV. In addition, discussing Jewish people as a group in this article is problematic, because mainstream Jewish organizations dispute the notion that it is a "race" (see [7]), and in fact identify the notion of Jews being a "race" as a key feature of anti-semitism (see [8]). NightHeron (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you please point me to where in the policy it says that violates WP:FRINGE? Per WP:FRINGENOT: "The purpose of this project is not to determine truth, but to accurately cover the worldwide view with appropriate weight given to notable viewpoints." This is clearly a notable view, and is being narrowly attributed to the authors of the study (rather than making or "giving credence" to the claims in wikivoice), so it seems entirely appropriate here. Maybe your concerns could be best addressed by further contextualizing the study by adding critiques and counterarguments?

I recognize your concern about discussing Jewish people as a group, but the study (and my addition to the article) discusses specifically Ashkenazi Jews, who were reproductively isolated for roughly a thousand years and have been found to be a clear, distinct genetic subgroup.[9] Stonkaments (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead of WP:FRINGE says that a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Right now the section on "Research into the possible..." adheres to this policy. The text you proposed adding does not. A lot of fringe views, including racial ones, are notable in the sense that a lot of people believe them, they influence how those people behave, and they keep appearing in print and online in various venues. Theories that some races are genetically superior/inferior to others in intelligence are such a viewpoint.

As I understand it (and it's not something I've studied), there are Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews, differing in what region their ancestors lived in. Neither is a "race", and together they don't form a "race". Discussing Ashkenazi Jews in an article on Race and intelligence is out of place. BTW, it strains credulity to say that Ashkenazi Jews were "reproductively isolated for roughly a thousand years". A huge number of Ashkenazi Jews have ancestry that is partly Slavic for the same reason that many African Americans have substantial caucasian ancestry. The anti-semitic pogroms in the Russian empire included rampant rape as well as murder, just as slaves in the US were often raped by their owners. NightHeron (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant question isn't whether or not Ashkenazi Jews comprise their own "race" (and I agree with you that they don't), but whether reliable sources find that the study of Ashekenazi Jews informs the broader discussion and study of Race and intelligence—in particular regarding a possible genetic influence on differences in groups' intelligence test scores. And the answer to that question is clearly yes.[10][11][12][13] (In the same way that I don't think white British, British Nigerians, British Ghanaians, etc. are distinct races, but their test scores are seen as notable and relevant to the discussion).

I understand your concern for wanting to convey the information in a way that does not make it appear more notable or widely accepted than it is, and I appreciate your patience in helping me understand your point of view. I'll try re-writing it to include a more clear and thorough context including common critiques such as the theory's implausibility, lack of mainstream support, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if you write some text on that subject, it would be best first to propose it here on the talk-page, so that editors who watchlist this page might weigh in. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron is correct here. Being FRINGE means that we handle sources in a specific way. See, e.g. Bigfoot. The text that you tried to add, on the other hand, presented FRINGE material as though it were factual / accepted science. The distinction is really not that hard to understand. Generalrelative (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it presented the material as accepted science. I was careful to explicitly attribute the claims to the authors of the study: Cochran, Hardy and Harpending (2006) argue that these IQ differences arose due to "the unique demography and sociology of Ashkenazim" in medieval Europe, which selected for intelligence. I'm willing to collaborate to improve the wording if you think it is unclear, but first we need to agree on whether the material deserves mention in the article at all.

And I believe the comparison to Bigfoot is wrong for a few different reasons:

1. One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject.[14] The study on Ashkenazi Jews' intelligence was published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal, which differentiates it from outlandish Bigfoot-esque claims.
2. Per WP:FRINGE/PS, on the spectrum of fringe theories, the view that racial differences in intelligence may have a genetic component is a credible alternative theoretical formulation, rather than "obviously bogus" pseudoscience or a hoax like Bigfoot. Stonkaments (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The crucial point here is that this article is not an appropriate platform for alternative theoretical formulations. We do have an article called History of the race and intelligence controversy which is much more capacious in terms of junk science, but I'm not sure that the stuff you're seeking to add belongs there either. In any case that would be a separate question.

The paper you cited by Cochran, Hardy and Harpending simply "elaborates the hypothesis". It doesn't even count as primary evidence (like a controlled study), let alone the kind of reliable secondary source that would cause us to reevaluate what belongs in an article about mainstream scientific understanding.

I'm not sure if you're aware of all the previous on-Wiki debate that has gone down surrounding "Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence". If not I would suggest that you check out the talk page archives of the deleted article of that name. You might also see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(2nd_nomination). TLDR: the topic itself may be notable but much of the speculation and primary research surrounding it are utterly unscientific. In other words, much more like Bigfoot than one might initially suspect. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Adoption studies page

Probably makes sense to mention that the Minnesota adoption study is the only one that followed up the subjects to adolescence. Typically the effects of shared environment (what most would call family environment/upbringing) disappear or at least diminish dramatically when adolescence is reached while the power of genetics to explain a larger share of the variation of the IQ increases.

This is also true of the Minnesota adoption study - during childhood it seemed that the shared environment had an impact, but when reaching adulthood the effect disappeared. So the studies of children cited as somehow evidence contrary to what the Minnesota study shows is misleading. However, I'm not accusing the editors of purposefully misleading - it was obvious from early discussions that many of the editors were not aware of how adoption studies worked and indeed thought they studied twins reared apart.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:84C5:2D7D:23DE:3559 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The article does mention the Minnesota follow-up study at age 17. As is clear from the article on the Minnesota study (see [15]), multiple interpretations are possible. The authors of the study themselves took an "agnostic" view about hereditarian explanations. Several later commentators, noting all the confounding variables that were not controlled for, have made it clear that the study conveys little of scientific value. NightHeron (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't mention that it's the only study that does that.

It shows similar results to all other adoption studies - that the effect of shared environment on IQ disappears entirely or is reduced dramatically as the adoptees reach adolescence. Its design and results are little different to all other adoption studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:15CE:3B4A:8B47:E2B8 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you're right that the Minnesota study is the best of the adoption studies, and if the Minnesota study was inconclusive and had methodological flaws (confounding variables), then all that means is that the other adoption studies were even worse. So it's not clear what's accomplished by pointing out that the other adoption studies didn't bother to do a follow-up. NightHeron (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the impact of shared environment disappears or is dramatically reduced by adolescence. You can see the link I linked earlier to see this is what all adoption show. Twin studies also show this. Whether one is raised by high IQ adoptive parents makes little to no difference to ones IQ when one reaches adulthood. The biological parents IQ predicts ones IQ very well, whether the biological parents raised them or not. This is the conclusions from both adoption and twin studies, that are much more rigorous methodologically than most research cited in this Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia reports reliable sources, preferably academic studies. You have failed to cite any credible bases for your assertions. When you find such, come back and produce them. Until you do, no-one will take seriously anything you have to say, so you are wasting your breath. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There also seems to be a misunderstanding here about the distinction between individual and group-level differences. The article cited by the IP is already discussed in Heritability of IQ, as is the fact that Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ have a genetic basis. To successfully argue for a change in this article, the IP would need to provide a reliable secondary source that explicitly comments on the relationship between race and intelligence, which the article they've cited above does not. Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is the study I linked not reliable? Since all adoption studies show that the effect of shared environment disappears or is dramatically reduced as adoptees reach adolescence, why should the Wikipedia article presume this is not the case when it comes to interracial adoption, especially since the only (imperfect) study of interracial adoption also indicates this?

What is the sort of evidence John Maynard Friedman you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:88D7:EE00:9A6F:9050 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read our policy no original research. Your question "why should the Wikipedia article presume this is not the case..." may seem rhetorical to you, but in fact there are a ton of reasons why heritability at the individual level does not translate to group-level differences, and a whole host of confounding factors which emerge at the group level that are not necessarily apparent to armchair observers. The way we handle complex scientific matters like this is through our policies and guidelines, for example no original research and reliable sources. If your interpretation of the science were correct (i.e. that twin studies provide evidence for genetic differences in intelligence between racial groups), it would be possible to cite a reliable secondary source that states this explicitly. Generalrelative (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not doing any original research. I'm just pointing out a well established finding from adoption studies that shows that the studies cited in the article that are supposed to show findings contrary to the one from Minnesota Transracial Adoption study do not show such findings. Comparing adoption studies of children that show shared environment having an impact with a study of adults showing shared environment does not have an impact is misleading, as the impact of shared environment is reduced dramatically or disappears when children reach adulthood according to all adoption studies. Right now the studies are portrayed as giving results different from the Minnesota one, which is not the case - they show same results and are in no way contradicting each other or providing findings that contradict that of the Minnesota adoption study.

It is original research to indicate that the adoption studies cited as showing results different from Minnesota ones are doing so. All studies (Minnesota one and the studies cited as showing findings contrary to that of Minnesota one) show shared environment during childhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:88D7:EE00:9A6F:9050 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Source used in the article contradict the article

For example, Mackintosh "IQ and Human Intelligence, Second Edition" cited in the article (163) states about whether black-white IQ gap is genetic in origin: "it would probably be even more reasonable to aknowledge that the evidence is simply not sufficient to provide a definitive answer one way or the other - and possibly never will." (page 344).

Should we remove Mackintosh as an unreliable source, since it contradicts the idea that there is a scientific consensus that the gap is not genetic in origin? Or mention that the scientific consensus has not established evidence that has given a definitive answer one way or the other? Seems to be contradictory to define the same source as reliable in some instances while not seeing it as reliable in others. Especially since the claim that scientific consensus exists that it's entirely environmental is not backed up by any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:B58F:CF5A:2948:DE82 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Once again, please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, for example no original research and reliable sources. It is perfectly normal for a source to be considered reliable for a certain set of claims (about which the author has special expertise) but not all claims (i.e. when they stray into speculation, as with the quote you've referenced above). Generalrelative (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently there is no source cited for the claim that there is a scientific consensus that differences are 100% environmental. How is that allowed? How is the quote I cited anymore speculative or out his expertise than the claims he makes cited in the Wikipedia article? How can we establish objectively which claims are such that his expertise is credible and which are not? And how is quoting this person original research? Familiarising yourself with our policies and guidelines might also be good for you. Making claims that the scientific consensus is that the differences are 100% environmental without any sources is definitely not in line with the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:B58F:CF5A:2948:DE82 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, words like "probably" and "possibly" are a good sign that the author is straying into speculation. And it's because Mackintosh was a good scholar that he provided these signposts to make such an evaluation easy. In other cases we need to exercise our collective judgment. As to your other (falsely predicated) questions, I won't repeat what has been stated repeatedly above. Feel free to search the archives for past discussions. I will remark that it is odd for someone to present themselves as being already familiar with our guidelines and policies while apparently unaware of how to sign their comments. In any case, unless I see evidence that you have actually become more familiar with these policies and guidelines –– and are thus able to present a cogent argument –– I will no longer be responding to your posts. This should not be taken as tacit consent for your views. Generalrelative (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The same words are used when he discusses the Minnesota adoption studies? How do we establish what are the areas he has expertise to make claims about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:C100:2955:CCAB:E435 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No source for the claim that the scientific consensus is that the differences are 0% genetic?

The first paragraph states "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups, and that observed differences are therefore environmental in origin."

All the surveys of intelligence researchers seem to suggest otherwise, unless there are some that I'm not aware, in which case they should be cited as a source. What are the sources for the claim in the first paragraph? Seems like POV pushing.

It's also in contradiction with articles such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:B053:9A89:8E8F:7F86 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed at great length last year, see [16]. The result of that RfC was that the view that some races are genetically superior to other races in intelligence is a fringe POV. There's no need to re-discuss this here. NightHeron (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)