Talk:Race and intelligence

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Race and genetics

Has anyone here considered splitting this article into "Group differences and intelligence" and "Race, genes, and intelligence." This article could run:

1 History of the debate 2 The validity of "IQ". 3 Group differences 4 Potential causes a. environmental b. cultural c. genetic 5 Significance of group differences 6 Policy relevance 7.Ethics of research

And the "Race, genes, and intelligence" article would specifically focus on the genetic hypothesis for racial differences. That way we wouldn't have to niggle over whether this or that sentence is being unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you say it would be a POVFORK? In a "race, genes, intelligence article," we could outline the gene/environment argument in detail. It would be separate from a "Group differences and intelligence" article which could deal with SES, ethnic, racial, sexual, geographic differences in a generic manner, focusing on the validity of IQ, the magnitudes of differences, the causes of the differences, generally, and other issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When you put race and genes and race and intelligence into the same article then it would clearly violate NPOV to suggest that the mainstream view on race, namely that it is a social category and not a genetic or biological one could be kept out of that article. We already have articles on Heritability of IQ and Race and genetics and a whole series of articles on [[Group differences in IQ (and sex, religion, fertility etc.) all of which suffer from the same problem - namely that they are biased towards the minority view that sees race and intelligence as both being categories with biological basis. You suggestion would do nothing to solve this problem.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. As I noted, race can be a social category (i.e a socially delineated group) and still have biological content. In fact, this is how hereditarians and others often treat race (Blacks = self identifying Africans/African-Americans; Whites = self identifying European/European Americans). Whether or not "Blacks" or "Asians" or whites fit a biological category is irrelevant -- all that matters is that on average there are genetic differences between the groups, which is trivially true. In the same way, SES groups can have heritable (genetic) differences (cf Murray 1994; Jensen 1981) without being "genetic or biological categories." Ditto ethnic groups. You can even cluster groups together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are stacking non sequitur on non sequitur. If race is not a valid biological construct then the basis for believing that a genetic causal explanation for any shared behavioral trait within a racial group is also necessarily invalidated. If someone does not believe that the reason that IQ varies between racial groups is biological and that therefore

Are you just playing dumb? When you say race is not a valid "biological construct," what do you mean? I'm guessing that you don't even understand the meaning of this phrase. When most people say that "races are biological constructs" they mean that they are groupings defined according to some taxonomic criteria. To say that "races are social constructs" is to say that they are groupings defined according to some non-taxonomic social criteria. That's all these phrases mean. Now, it should be patently clear that "social construction" does not preclude genetic difference. For example, here are two socially constructed groupings: "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average." By definition these groups are genetically different and yet are "social constructs." In the same manner, different racial groupings can be genetically different and still be "social constructs," as most people use the term --174.97.236.49 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

Since you clearly don't have a clue what the term 'social construct' means, please don't use it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to provide a definition of "social construct" (and "biological construct") which contradicts my point. Let me give a clear example: While sex (male and female) is considered to be a biological construct, Gender (masculine and feminine) is considered to be a social construct. On average, there are nonetheless genetic differences between groups of people classified by gender, because gender overlaps with sex. Would you disagree? Would you maintain that on average there are no biological/genetic differences between groups of people classified by gender? To continue, it's trivially true that on average there are genetic difference between, says, Blacks (African Americans) and Whites (West Eurasian American); for example, Blacks tend to be darkly pigmented and whites tend to be lightly pigmented. Would you honestly contend that the average pigmentation difference between individuals socially classified as Blacks and Whites has no genetic basis? Now, since there are genetic differences between racial groups (e.g. Blacks and Whites), either "race is a social construct" is trivially false OR "race is a social construct" does not mean that there can be no average genetic differences between racial groups. Take your pick.

--174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

It is of course true that categories being socially constructed does not preclude biological difference (and that on average people with different genders also have different chromosomes)- but it just so happens that race and gender are different in this aspect because Race does not overlap with any biological category. There is no biological category that maps onto the categories of "black people" and "white people" with a degree of precision even remotely similar to that of gender - this is because opposed to gender categories, the social construction of racial categories is not a universal one that maps onto an inherent biological difference but an extremely locally defined one that is used to map on to certain subjectively defined and clinally distributed biological traits. And no there are no trivial truth in your definition of the definition between light and dark skin because those terms are relatve and the thresholds for category inclusion differ from place to place and situation to situation and are influence by a gazillion other social factors. You are basically just wasting our time continuing this line of argument. We have the sources and we say what they say.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect to your statement "We have the sources and we say what they say," my concern is that you don't understand what some of them say. Let's take a specific point. In the "race and genetics/ section, you say: "Templeton argues that racial groups neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races." In the source cited, Tempelton does not say anything about there being no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races. Perhaps he says this elsewhere (a relevant citation would be nice), by my guess would be that he does not reason from the non existence of human subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Manus, I glad we agree that the "social construction" of a groups, per se, "does not preclude biological difference." You contend, nonetheless, that for there to be biological differences, socially constructed groups must overlap with biological categories. You provide no justification for this. Above, I gave an example of why this is not the case: "For example, here are two socially constructed groupings: "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average." By definition these groups are genetically different and yet are social constructs [that do not overlap with biological categories]." (For a discussion of the meaning of social constructs refer to: Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy --

• To say "Y is a social construct" is to say X constructs Y (i.e. Y doesn't have independent existence apart from what people say it is)
• X constructs Y if and only if X causes Y to exist or to persist or X controls the kind-typical properties of Y

Now, pray tell, which statement do you disagree with:

• the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" is a socially constructed group that does not overlap with a biological category

OR

• there are genetic differences between the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average."

If you disagree with neither, you agree with me that there can be genetic differences between socially constructed groups even if these groups do not "overlap with any biological category." As I have stated before. Whether or not races are social constructions -- or overlap with biological categories -- is irrelevant to whether or not, on average, there are genetic differences between them.

The fact is that the available evidence points to the conclusion that racial divisions can not be said to be characterized by any meaningful genetical differences - either on average or in individual cases. Your example is again useless because people with lower or higher than average IQ's is based on a single objective criterion - racial groupings are not.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Manus, this is an interesting claim. I won't dispute it here. My point was simply that social construction (i.e non biological construction) doesn't preclude genetic differences. Why is this relevant? In this section you stated: "Templeton argues that racial groups neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races." In the source cited, Tempelton does not say anything about there being no basis for making claims about differences in intelligence. Perhaps he says this elsewhere (a relevant citation would be nice), but my guess is that he does not reason from the non existence of human subspecies ("and that therefore..."). My guess is that this is your interpretation. I could be wrong. To decide, I will have to wait for you to point me to the relevant passage. Anyways, to make this basic point about this one sentence, it was necessary for us clarify what it means to say race is or isn't a biological construct. (By the way, could you check over my proposed edit to the "Heritability within and between groups" section, as I am guessing that you are the one that undoes my changes.--174.97.236.49 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

Templeton writes: "The premier human adaption is our intelligence. There is no doubt that our species as a whole has had its recent evolution chaacterized by a large increase in intelligence, but the question still remains if current human populations are genetically differentiated with respect to intelligence, either as a reflection of isolation by distance or local adaptation. Unfortunately this question is usually muddied by two indefensible erros: (a) phrasing the question as a genetic differentiation in intelligence among "races", (b) phrasing this question in terms of the heritability of intelligence or some surrogate such as an IQ test score. As shown previously, races do not exist in humans under any modern definition. Because different traits have discordant distributions it is meaningless to look at "racial" differences in any specific traits including intelligence. One can look at genetic differentiation among any two or more populations, but it would be incorrect to generalize from those specific populations to broader "racial" categories. Hence in any discussion of intelligence the conclusions must be limited to the specific populations under study and not generalized beyond them". (Templeton 2001 p.49 )·Maunus·ƛ· 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. So to sum up, Templeton says that since there are no human subspecies (according to him), there wouldn't be IQ differentiation along subspecies lines -- but there could be IQ differentiation along population lines (say West Africans versus East Africans versus Europeans versus South Asians). This is different from what you said. You said: since races are not subspecies there couldn't be racial differences in intelligence. There's a subtle but important difference here. Templeton's formulation allows us to inquire about population differences, and, in that sense "race" differences where races refers to local populations (i.e. Europeans instead of "Caucasoids"; West Africans instead of "Negroids"); Templeton's point is that it's not meaningful to generalize beyond these narrower populations to broader populations. This point is not inconsistent with hereditarianism as concerning the US; When it comes to the Black-White difference, "Whites" (European for the most part) are being compared with Blacks (West Africans for the most part) -- both represent narrow populations, more or less. By your formulation, there couldn't be differences between narrow populations because they are not subspecies. We have:

• because populations are not part of races qua subspecies, we can not generalize differences beyond populations --("races do not exist in humans under any modern (subspecies) definition. One can look at genetic differentiation among any two or more populations, but it would be incorrect to generalize from those specific populations to broader "racial" (subspecies) categories")

Versus

• because races qua populations are not subspecies, there can not be differences between races qua populations.

("Templeton argues that racial groups [as commonly defined) neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races [as commonly defined).")

The second statement doesn't follow. And it isn't what Temp said. So the statement in question needs to be rephrased or removed. It might fit better in the section that deals with international differences.

You are misrepresrnting Templeton and me. I already knew when I posted this that you would somehoew twist this top make it fit your case. He is flat out contradicting you in fact. I am not going to discuss this more with you. My time is too precious. I am sure other editors will be able to see what Templeton actually says, and how you are misrepresenting him as saying the opposite of what he says.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Templeton makes it clear that there can be between population differences in intelligence. He argues that it's meaningless to ask if there are between subspecies differences in intelligence. With regards to the hereditarian position, we are asking if there are between race -- where race means population or group (i.e the population of African and European Americans) -- differences in intelligence. You are misrepresenting Tempelton's position. How about this edit: "Templeton argues that racial groups do not represent subspecies and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of subspecies"?

• 1)It's redundant to say that races do not represent subspecies and "distinct evolutionary lineages," since Templeton argued that races are not subspecies because they are not "distinct evolutionary lineages,"
• 2) Again Tempelton says there is no basis for making claims about subspecies. If races are not subspecies, they must be something else (e.g popultions or groups). And Templeton does not say that there's no basis for making claims about populations or groups. --174.97.236.49 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

No you are misrepresenting his position based on a reading statements into the quote that he does not make. Try to read what it actually says: "races do not exist in humans under any modern definition" and "It is meaningless to look for "racial differences in any specific trait including intelligence". He clearly and unequivocally says that there can be intelligence differences between populations that are adaptively distinct or distinct by isolation (a requirement for selective forces to have operated on them and not other groups), but that racial groups do not represent such a group and that studying racial differences in any biological trait is meaningless. You are misrepresenting arguments from sources in a way that is clearly disruptive and makes it difficult to assume good faith in interacting with you. I suggest trying an approach that is less combative and aims at comprehending sources and representing their actual meanings instead of twisting them to agree with your personal goals. Otherwise your career here will be short, as the discretionary sanctions that are in place here are aimed to stop precisely that behavior.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

also Templeton does not argue that race is not subspecies because they are not evolutionary lineages - he distinguishes between the two quite clearly. How can you pretend to correct misrepresentations of a source that you have clearly not read?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If your argument is that hereditarians are in the minority position because they believe that races are biological categories, you're mistaken -- consider that both Murray and Jensen made similar arguments for class differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that argument is called social darwinism and is just as baseless as the race argument and it also does assume that class differences are based on genetic differences, namely the genetic difference that they assume cause one class to have lower IQs than other.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the view that race and intelligence are biological is not the minority viewpoint. I would describe the notion that they aren't as the fringe (namely, Marxist) viewpoint. Rrrrr5 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone who think UNESCO is a Marxist organization couldn't be trusted to recognize a fringe viewpoint if sitting on it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not a Marxist organization, but it is indeed a Marxist-affiliated viewpoint. Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"a Marxist-affiliated viewpoint"! I was unaware that a viewpoint could become a Party Member (or even a fellow -traveller). Isn't Wikipedia wonderful, you learn something new every day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

....·Maunus·ƛ· 13:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, as much as I'm a staunch defender of hereditarianism. This whole article is rather untidy. Why can't you break it into:

• History of the debate (general brief)
• The validity of "IQ"
• Group differences
• Potential causes a. environmental b. cultural c. genetic (make c brief and generic)
• The environmental versus hereditarian debate (environmental case/hereditarian case) -- setting some word limit to cut down on unrepresentative views (i.e each side has X words to present their side.)
• Significance of group differences as it is.
• Policy relevance given different causes and expected durations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the article needs a cleanup. But no, that is the wrong outline and the proposal is in basic conflict with the policy NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Balance is not achieved by giving each side equal amounts of verbiage - it is achieved by weighing points of view relative to their prominence in academics. Your proposal has no section on race and the problems of race - whch is the most controversial problem with the entire topic. And Cultural causes are also environmental - since we attain culture through interaction with our cultural environments.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Inbreeding depression"

I propose rewriting the " "Inbreeding depression" section to make it more readable:

"Heritability and the method of correlated vectors"

Different subtests vary in how much they correlate with general intelligence loadings, heritability estimates, and inbreeding depression. The Black-White subtest differences correlate with general intelligence loadings, heritability estimates, and the effect of inbreeding -- a purely genetic effect. As the hereditarian hypothesis predicts this while environmental hypotheses do not, Hereditarians argue that one can infer a genetic component to the difference. In reply, Nisbett and Flynn argue that the Flynn effect, a presumably non-genetic effect, also correlates with general intelligence loadings and inbreeding depression; as such, they argue that the above correlations imply nothing. Rushton and Jensen have disputed Nisbett and Flynn's claim and maintain that the correlations support a genetic role.[5]--174.97.236.49 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

Honestly I would remove the entire section as unencyclopedic. It's a he said/she said about a topic which has no high quality secondary sources supporting it's inclusion. aprock (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removal.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

agree.-- mustihussain (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles Murray as an intelligence researcher?

I have reverted the addition of Chareles Murray in the list of prominent hereditarians, as his field of study and endeavor is neiher inteligence nor anthropology nor human genetics, but rather policy, and his work did not produce any original research, but was mostly a reinterpretation of other research by other researchers (among them Rushton).--Ramdrake (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you possibly think there's now a consensus for this change? Sightwatcher, Victor Chmara, Maunus and myself all have said that this doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the lead. The only people who expressed agreement with you on this are Volunteer Marek and AndytheGrump. What's more, you haven't made an attempt to respond to Victor's point that Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredson are all on the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, and that that is just as relevant as mentioning their relationship to the Pioneer Fund. Why are we mentioning their affiliation to the Pioneer Fund, but not this? Your statement that "if "Intelligence" is THE premier publication in the field, then the field is in a sorry state" does not render this irrelevant. This field is the article's topic area, and therefore it's what the article needs to be based on, whether you like it or not.

Consensus is more than just a vote. What matters more is the strength of the arguments being made, so I think it's more important how you brushed aside Victor's point without addressing it than that the majority of editors involved in this discussion disagree with you. As an editor whose opinion is in the minority here, and who is not trying to address the points made by the majority, you should not be claiming that your preferred version has consensus.

I find it very telling that for the past month 100% of your content edits have been reverts, that all but two of them have not been accompanied by any explanation on the talk page. And that all but one of your reverts in this topic area have been to reinstate changes made by Volunteer Marek. When the focus of an editor's involvement is to support editors with whom they agree in edit wars, that is not a good sign about whether the goal of their involvement is to work collaboratively with other editors. There are discretionary sanctions authorized on this article, so if you continue with this behavior I intend to go to an admin about it.Boothello (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of the Pioneer Fund reference is weaselly. On the other hand - should we credit Murray with being a researcher on the topic? He's notable media-wise, but is he really appropriate as an academic reference on this particular topic? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that when hereditarian researchers are being listed somewhere, it happens too often that Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredson are the only people listed. It creates the false impression that these four are the only hereditarian researchers who matter, and I think it would be good for the article to mention an additional person. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the fifth person should be Charles Murray or someone else, though. I asked Victor Chmara in his user talk whether he thinks Murray is a better choice than someone like Loehlin or Sesardic, so let's see what he says. What do you think?Boothello (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's bizarre to claim that Murray has not done original research in this field. Murray and Herrnstein's original analysis of IQ data from the NLSY is probably the most debated IQ study in history. His publishing record in academic journals is not extensive but it is not non-existent either, see e.g. [1], [2], and [3]. He has probably published more on this topic than someone like Nisbett, who is properly a social psychologist. Murray is one of the best-known people associated with the race and IQ controversy.

There is certainly no consensus to mention Pioneer in the lead section. If anything, there's a consensus against that. If we start inserting all sorts of qualifiers and insinuations so as to cast doubt on the motives of the hereditarian researchers, we will have to do that with the anti-hereditarians, too. For example, should Stephen Rose be described in the article as a "polemicist on the left" or "the last of the Marxist radical scientists", as he has been described in the Guardian (see his article for references)? I hope we will not go down that road. The problem with mentioning affilitations that some scientist may have is that everybody has multiple affiliations, and choosing which one to mention and how to mention it is a completely arbitrary process driven by personal biases. It's best to just neutrally describe these people as psychologists, anthropologists or whatever, and if some affiliations are relevant, discuss them more in more detail in one place in the article and/or in a dedicated article as is currently done with Pioneer.

I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of Murray (Vincent Sarich and Henry Harpending are some others who could be included), but Pioneer should certainly not be mentioned in the lede for the above reasons.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is my concern: I know Murray's work best from my days as a policy researcher. At least in the UK he's not seen as particularly credible amongst academics in policy studies. His work is studied as an influential articulation of a political position, but in terms of his use of empirical evidence, his research is considered pretty poor. Essentially, he's a media-friendly advocate, not a quality researcher. I think he's significant as a populariser of ideas, but my reading of the text is that that is not a good criterion for inclusion here. We should be wary of media perception getting in the way of who the serious players are. The Bell Curve didn't get attention for the quality of the work - it was partly the opposite. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Murray is as competent a researcher as anyone, and The Bell Curve used standard social science methods, and its main results have been replicated by other researchers. Most of the criticisms against him are pure political nonsense. Murray once wrote a rather amusing article about the distortions and dishonesty of many of the book's critics, but unfortunately I cannot locate it at the moment [edit: it's this one [4]]. Anyway, we can include someone other than Murray in the lede.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Herrnstein was clearly the more respected researcher of the two, and the only one with a background in Psychology. Sarich and Harpending are both minor players, I don't think they deserve lead attention, I do think the Bell Curve should be mentioned in the lead, especially since its publication sparked the current phase of the controversy.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with Murray and/or Herrnstein being mentioned in the lede, as their book is one of the most notable on the topic. Also OK with PF having a brief mention in the lede. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the Pioneer Fund in relation with Rushton et al.

I believe the point that Volunteer Marek was trying to make with his edit is that ALL the most prominent hereditarian researchers are ALSO PF grantees. This. In my view is a significant point. While the point may conceivably be better written (how?), I still think it is important enough to deserve reasonable mention in t he lede, as the PF is a major corporate player through its funding in this field of endeavior.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention the PF when it is specifically relevant. I don't think we should use it as a tag to automatically put after certain people's names. It definitely deserves mention in the lead as all involved groups agree that it has played an important role in all of the phases of the controversy from the earliest period.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added back mention of the Pioneer Fund, hopefully within the parameters of your comment.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I already told Boothello several times, my point was NOT that "all hereditarian researchers are PF grantees", but rather that "all the hereditarian researchers listed in the lede of this article are PF grantees". I take no stance as to whether these are the "most prominent" amongst them or not. But the source DOES state and explicitly discuss the connection of:

Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson (copy pasted from article text)

to the Pioneer Fund. Since these names can thrown a lot in this and other related articles, yes, I do think it is important to note the connection in the lede. In fact, if we mention it once in the lede, it will be unnecessary to bring up the fact again when these folks are mentioned in the text (per Maunus' comment).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Although a thorough discussion of funding and the role of PF in promoting this particular line of research does probably warrant a separate section or subsection (under "Ethics of research" perhaps) of its own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

New lead proposal

There've been a lot of undiscussed changes to this article’s lead section in the past few weeks, and a few people have made suggestions about things they think it should include, so I decided to try and write a new version of the lead that incorporates these suggestions. Here’s my proposal of how the lead should be changed:

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of intelligence testing in the early 20th century, particularly in the United States. There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and any discussion of their connection involves studies from multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests performed in the US have consistently demonstrated a significant degree of variation between different racial groups, with the average score of the African American population being lower—and that of the Asian American population being higher—than that of the European-American population. At the same time, there is considerable overlap between these group scores, and individuals of each group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum. Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, most notably in Africa, although these studies are generally considered less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores. While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause.

It is generally agreed that both genetics and environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores. While part of the difference between groups is caused by environmental factors, some researchers argue it is not yet known whether another part of the difference can be attributed to hereditary factors. Others argue that the evidence supports an all-environmental explanation. A third position is that the evidence supports a partial-genetic explanation. A fourth position holds that IQ does not exist, that it is a socially constructed concept, and that the source of the difference resides in the nature of the tests, which favor particular ethnic and linguistic groups.

While the relationship between race and intelligence has been debated for over a century, the modern scientific debate over it began in 1969 with the publication of the paper "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement" by Arthur Jensen in Harvard Educational Review. The debate was revived again in the 1990s by the publication of The Bell Curve. The claim that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap has a genetic origin has been advanced by researchers including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, and Charles Murray, while researchers such as Richard Nisbett, James R. Flynn, Robert Sternberg, Stephen Rose, Jonathan Marks and Jefferson Fish have argued in favor of wholly or mostly environmental causes. The controversial Pioneer Fund has also played a role in the debate by funding many of the foremost proponents of the hereditarian position. The fund is currently headed by J. Philippe Rushton.

Here are the reasons for the things I changed:

• I added back the information about how IQ scores are distributed, which was removed around a week ago without consensus. As I mentioned when this was removed, it makes the article confusing for it to talk about racial IQ gaps before explaining what those gaps are. WP:LEAD says the lead is meant to be a concise summary of the rest of the article, and it’s not possible to summarize the article without mentioning this. Maunus said that he thinks it’s misleading to mention how IQ scores are distributed without mentioning the debate over the reason for this, so I also included a sentence to the end of this paragraph mentioning that there’s no consensus about the cause of these gaps.

• I removed the sentence about skull measurements in the lead section. This was unsourced, and mentioned nowhere else in the article, so it shouldn’t be in the lead. Some other recent changes to the first paragraph also don’t make sense, such as saying that race and intelligence was a topic of debate only before the invention of intelligence tests. That’s completely backwards: while the connection between race and intelligence has been discussed in some capacity for centuries, the modern debate over this began when IQ tests were invented. I’ve changed the first paragraph back to the way it was before these changes were made.

• Maunus suggested that the lead section should mention The Bell Curve, so I added a sentence about that to the last paragraph. I also think if we’re going to discuss the history of the controversy, we should also mention Arthur Jensen’s 1969 paper that initiated the modern race and intelligence debate.

• I don’t think the paragraph on group statements about race and IQ should be in the lead, for two reasons. First, the lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, and the statements from the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. And second, I think the statements from AAA, AAPA and UNESCO deserve more space than they can be given in the lead. These three statements do not say exactly the same thing, and lumping them all into the same sentence in the lead prevents us from presenting the nuances of any of them. If consensus favors my proposal for the lead section, I’ll also work on creating a new section called “group statements” where we can describe these statements in detail.

Since there is no consensus for the current version of the lead, I think it’s important for it to be replaced with something that’s been discussed. Suggestions about how to improve this are welcome.Boothello (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, your text is self-contradictory in places. Specifically:

It is generally agreed that both genetics and environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores.

contradicts

Others argue that the evidence supports an all-environmental explanation.

I also very strongly disagree with the removal of the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO statements. We've already discussed it and while there was disagreement with the wording the consensus seemed very much to include the statements. These groups statements are very important and give the reader the "bottom line" on the subject. If the statements are not mentioned further in the article, that's actually just reflective of the sorry POV state of the article - what we would want to do is to bring rest of the article UP, not drag the lede DOWN.

And yes, I still think Rushton, Lynn and others should be linked to the PF fund, but even if not, the nature of the PF as a racist organization devoted to promotion of scientific racism DOES need to be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

More generally, the basic problem with this article (and several related ones), including the lede is the UNDUE attention given to the so-called "hereditarian" position and the presentation of it in much more favorable terms than it is actually regarded. Your changes do not seem to tackle these fundamental issues in any way, and if anything, make them worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that in to put forth in the *same argument* that the claims made in the Bell Curve and Jensen's 1969 paper deserve greater mention in the lede while those from the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO are so complex there isn't enough room for their summation there is - hilarious -. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to these objections one at a time:

• We just finished discussing the Pioneer Fund issue at length, and I don't think anyone else agrees with what you want. The current wording is as close to a compromise as it's possible to have between you and everyone else here. If you still don't like it even now, I don’t think there's anything else left to discuss about it at this point.

• Of the two statements you quoted that you say are contradictory, the first is referring to individual IQ scores, while the second is referring to racial IQ gaps. This wording also isn't something new that I'm proposing, it's the wording currently in the article. If you think I should change the article's current wording to make it clearer, please make a specific suggestion about how to improve it.

• The mention of The Bell Curve was included because Maunus wanted it to be mentioned. [5] It doesn't matter much to me whether the Bell Curve is included here, I only included it to incorporate Maunus's suggestion. Both The Bell Curve and Jensen's 1969 paper initiated new stages in the race and intelligence debate, more so than any other publications on the topic, and both hereditarians and environmentalists agree they had this effect. I think this is why Maunus wanted The Bell Curve to be mentioned, but do you disagree?

• If other people think it's necessary for the AAA, AAPA, and UNESCO statements be included, at the very least the paragraph about them needs to be reworded. I'll post a new version of this proposal sometime soon that does so.Boothello (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• We just finished discussing the Pioneer Fund issue at length, and I don't think anyone else agrees with what you want. - No, that is not true. Andy the Grump, Ramdrake, and aprock agreed with me, more or less. Maunus stated that he didn't think that the PF connection should be overemphasized but that's not the same thing, despite your claims, as saying that it should not be emphasized at all.

"Racial" IQ scores are composed of individual IQ scores, are they not? Again, we shouldn't even be spending that much time on the herederian view in the first place.

I didn't disagree with the mention of the Bell Curve. But we should be honest and state explicitly that the reason these works are "noteworthy" is because of the controversy not because their conclusions are widely accepted.

However, see Professor Marginalia's comment above. If that part needs to be reworded, it's only to include the statement that I had tried to put into the article, based on a reliable source, which you then removed.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

'"Racial" IQ scores are composed of individual IQ scores, are they not?

For individual IQ variation within racial groups to be highly heritable does not by any means necessitate that between-group IQ differences have to be heritable also. The reason for that is explained by the article itself (although not as clearly as it could be), by the APA report, and by almost every other source that summarizes the race/IQ debate from either a hereditarian or environmental perspective. This point is so basic, covered so extensively in the source material, and so central to the Race/IQ debate that I'm kind of shocked you would be making large changes to these articles with the aggressiveness that you have if you haven't read enough of the source material to understand this. Having an informed opinion about what these articles should and shouldn't say requires a certain amount of knowledge about this topic. If you aren't familiar enough with it to be aware of the distinction between within-group and between-group heritability, then you seriously need to reconsider whether you're knowledgeable enough about this topic for your participation here to be helpful.

The hereditarian hypothesis is not the view that genetics influence individual IQ variation within racial groups. The hereditarian hypothesis is the view that genetics also influence differences in average IQ between racial groups. The first idea is mainstream, the second is not. I can explain how the first can be true and the second not if you want me to, and I'm sure any of the regulars on these articles could too. But for someone who is trying to dictate article content as much as you have been, it shouldn't be necessary to explain something like this to them at all.Boothello (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again it, you're right (don't ever say I don't concede a point when I'm shown to be wrong) - I do understand the point perfectly well, but here I just denied my antecedent (switched my "if" with an "only if"). I read it as the first part saying that between group variability was both genetic and environmental while individual heritability was all environmental, in which case the statement would be wrong. But I flipped it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the new version. As requested, I did away with the ref to The Bell Curve and Jensen's 1969 paper, and added a paragraph about the statements from AAA, AAPA and UNESCO.

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of intelligence testing in the early 20th century, particularly in the United States. There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and any discussion of their connection involves studies from multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests performed in the US have consistently demonstrated a significant degree of variation between different racial groups, with the average score of the African American population being lower—and that of the Asian American population being higher—than that of the European-American population. At the same time, there is considerable overlap between these group scores, and individuals of each group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum. Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, most notably in Africa, although these studies are generally considered less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores. While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause.

It is generally agreed that both genetics and environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores. While part of the difference between groups is caused by environmental factors, some researchers argue it is not yet known whether another part of the difference can be attributed to hereditary factors. Others argue that the evidence supports an all-environmental explanation. A third position is that the evidence supports a partial-genetic explanation. A fourth position holds that IQ does not exist, that it is a socially constructed concept, and that the source of the difference resides in the nature of the tests, which favor particular ethnic and linguistic groups.

The claim that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap has a genetic origin has been advanced by researchers including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, and Charles Murray, while researchers such as Richard Nisbett, James R. Flynn, Robert Sternberg, Stephen Rose, Jonathan Marks and Jefferson Fish have argued in favor of wholly or mostly environmental causes. The controversial Pioneer Fund has also played a role in the debate by funding many of the foremost proponents of the hereditarian position. The fund is currently headed by J. Philippe Rushton.

Several professional organizations have issued statements that addressed the topic of race and intelligence. According to a 1951 statement from UNESCO, while some races tend to score higher on intelligence tests than others, there is evidence that given similar opportunities, the average performance of racial groups would not differ significantly from one race to another. The report states that it is possible but not proved that some types of innate mental capacity are more common in one human group than another, but it is certain that innate capacities within a single group vary as much as, if not more than, between different groups. A 1994 statement from the American Anthropological Association states that intelligence cannot be biologically determined by race, because race has proven to not be a meaningful way to explain variation in biological traits. In a 1996 statement, the American Psychological Association has said that while there is evidence for differences in average IQ between racial groups, there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, there is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation, and no adequate explanation for the racial IQ gap is presently available. According to a 1996 statement from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, although heredity influences variation in behavior within populations, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, and all peoples possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture.

After doing some research about the UNESCO statement, I found that the original 1950 version of it was replaced in 1951 with an updated version, as described here. When people have said that they think this article should include the UNESCO statement, I assume it must be the 1951 version that they mean. It would be extremely misleading for this article to include only the 1950 statement, and imply that this statement still represents UNESCO's current position, without mentioning that this statement was replaced with a new version the following year. With this in mind, the summary presented here is based of the 1951 version of the statement.

As I said before, the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO statements do not say exactly the same thing, so if we're going to summarize them we have to do so separately, not lump them all into the same sentence. I still think it's unwieldy for these group statements to be presented in the lead instead of their own section, but if this is what everyone else wants, I'm willing to accept that consensus opposes me about it.

Does anyone have any other suggestions about this? I would especially like to get Victor Chmara's and VsevolodKrolikov's opinions. Both of them have been involved in this article for a long time, and seem to have a good understanding of the issues surrounding this topic, so I'd like to know if they approve.Boothello (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• the connection between race and intelligence had been discussed for centuries before IQ tests were invented

• psychology should be mentioned first when listing relevant disciplines

• I do not understand why the ancient UNESCO statements should be given such a prominent role, or even mentioned, in the lead section; they are of historical interest only

• a lead section should have at most four paragraphs

• the sentence "A fourth position holds that IQ does not exist, that it is a socially constructed concept, and that the source of the difference resides in the nature of the tests, which favor particular ethnic and linguistic groups" is incoherent (IQ does not exist?) and should be rewritten

• the paragraph containing the above sentence is a bit incoherent as a whole, too; for example, who has suggested that there are precisely these four explanations for racial IQ differences?

• I don't think any researchers should be mentioned by name in the lead section; the debate is or at least should be about arguments and evidence, not persons

--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of your criticisms, for example, I said before I think the UNESCO statement is old enough that it shouldn't be in the lead section, but I included it because Maunus and Volunteer Marek both thought it needed to be there. I also think that the whole last paragraph belongs in the article body rather than the lead, partly because it lengthens the lead unnecessarily. But when I made the first version of my proposal without this paragraph, most other editors opposed it. So I'm not sure what to do here.

I guess what I suggest is that you make your own proposal for the lead, and see whether other editors prefer it over my proposal. If they do, we can use your version instead of mine. But either way the current lead really needs to be replaced, even moreso now that I've found it's misrepresenting UNESCO's position by describing only their 1950 statement without mentioning the 1951 revision.

For a lot of articles in this topic area, I think the most neutral and stable versions are from before Miradre or Marek became involved in them. This is what this article looked like before either of them began editing it. The lead section of that version of the article had been stable for several months, so it might be worth getting some ideas from it about what the current lead should say.Boothello (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• The statements from the professional organizations should come first, in the second paragraph, definitely before Rushton et. al., though it might have to be reworded slightly in that case for flow. Otherwise, it should be the third paragraph.
• On the UNESCO statement, I see it as relevant but on this one I'm willing to be convinced - it'd be nice to find something more up to date.
• Not sure why Psychologists should come first. Anthropologists and others have as much of a claim here as anyone - it might make sense to just go with an alphabetical listing. What's the argument for giving Psychologists prominence here?
• Yes, the lede is too long, too some extent that's going to be inevitable here. I'd cut:
  • Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, most notably in Africa, although these studies are generally considered less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores. While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause. - not nec and too much detail for the lead.
  • Several professional organizations have issued statements that addressed the topic of race and intelligence. - not nec, it's obvious from text that follows what the text is about.
  • The report states that it is possible but not proved that some types of innate mental capacity are more common in one human group than another, but it is certain that innate capacities within a single group vary as much as, if not more than, between different groups. - too much detail
  • The current second and third paragraph should be combined as they on the same thing.
• Not mentioning researchers in the lede - the problem is that the distribution of these researchers is pretty skewed. It's obvious from the folks listed that this is too a large (though not total) extent Pioneer Fund Grantees vs. rest of the world. Given that the article gives such a over-prominent space to the herediterian view, the Pioneer Fund should be mentioned. An alternative would be too scale the attention given to the heredeiterian view in which case it would make sense to remove these guys from the lede. But I don't see the latter happening, so at least Rushton and PF should stay in the lede.
• IQ does not exist - yeah, that's bad writing. I'm guessing it should be something like "single factor intelligence doesn't exist" or "intelligence is not quantifiable" or "intelligence is not one dimensional" or something like that. What's the source here again (this relates to Victor's last question)?
• Boothello, before I made my edits the article was a weaselly exercise in white washing and WP:UNDUE. It still is but less so. "Stability" is not a good argument - articles can be "stable" and be very bad, for a long time. This point was already made previously, so please don't keep bringing it up again and again.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would the UNESCO statements (there were two of them, the first by sociologists and cultural anthropologists, the second by physical anthropologists and geneticists who rejected the race-denialist line of thinking in the first statement) be relevant in this article's lead section? I think this article should be about current views on race and intelligence, because there's a separate article on the history of the race and intelligence controversy. What other article about a scientific topic or controversy discusses views held 60 years ago in its lead section?

The reason why psychologists should be mentioned first is obvious: The article is almost entirely about IQ and psychological research, and at least 90 percent of the sources used are by psychologists. Psychology is the only science with a valid and reliable operationalization of intelligence, and to the extent that other disciplines deal with race and intelligence at all, it's mostly handwaving for this reason.

Race and IQ research outside of the US should be mentioned in the lead section, because that's a prominent part of the debate; it's not just about America. However, this could be done more succintly.

While it has been repeatedly claimed in these discussions that the hereditarian view is a minor view or even a fringe view, no evidence has ever been presented in support of this idea. The only representative survey of academic opinion on race and intelligence is the Snyderman and Rothman one from the 1980s, which showed that among psychologists, educationalists, and sociologists, some sort of hereditarianism was the modal view, whereas the hardcore environmentalist view was supported by a much smaller minority. I'm not claiming that that study is definitive, but it certainly does not lend support to the notion that hereditarianism is a marginal view in the fields of science that are most relevant to this topic.

I see no reason why any researchers should be mentioned by name in the lead section. No other article does that.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason why psychologists should be mentioned first is obvious: The article is almost entirely about IQ and psychological research, and at least 90 percent of the sources used are by psychologists. Psychology is the only science with a valid and reliable operationalization of intelligence, and to the extent that other disciplines deal with race and intelligence at all, it's mostly handwaving for this reason. - even assuming this is true, the article is about Race and intelligence, and there the anthropologists get the prominence over the psychologists. The fact that the article is primarily about IQ and psychological research is one of the things that is wrong with the article rather than a reason to monkey it up further.

While it has been repeatedly claimed in these discussions that the hereditarian view is a minor view or even a fringe view, no evidence has ever been presented in support of this idea. - the fact that the overwhelming majority of the pro-hereditarian research is associated with the racist Pioneer Institute is pretty much evidence for the fact that it's a fringe view. If you want to limit the article to non-PF grantees that could possibly work but it would mean removing lots of the article.

For the same reason, the Pioneer Fund, and "researchers" associated with it should be mentioned in the lede. They, and the institute are very much part of the discussion and they are treated at great length in the sources - hence the lede should reflect that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

An important factor is that if you look at the academic literature that provides in-depth discussion about the relationship between race and intelligence, rather than just discussing either race or intelligence with a few passing mentions of the other topic, that literature is overwhelmingly within the field of psychology. In other words if you look at all of the scholarly books and papers published in a given year that provide an in-depth discussion about race and intelligence, most by far will be within the field of psychology, and at least half will be in psychometrics. Psychology sources also tend to be the only ones that provide detailed coverage of the individual subjects of debate within this topic, like Spearman’s Hypothesis, X-factors, or the Flynn Effect. To the extent that anthropologists have written about this topic, their views should also be included. But the portion of the source literature that's written by them is really minor compared to that which is written by psychologists. When research about a topic is so completely dominated by one particular field, then that should be reflected in Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.

As I said, I'm just talking about academic sources here. I know that there are lots of popular books about this topic by people in all sorts of different fields, but scholarly books and papers are always the most reliable sources in any article about a scientific topic, so those are what the article should be based on.

And it's wrong to say that the majority of hereditarian research is associated with the Pioneer Fund, unless you mean "associated with" in a very misleading way. Most hereditarian research definitely is not supported by the Pioneer Fund. It may be accurate to say is that the majority of hereditarian research is from researchers who have at one time in their lives done research that was supported by the Pioneer Fund, although Maunus explained here the reason why - it is sometimes difficult to obtain funding for controversial research, and researchers will often take funding where they can find it. Consider Hans Eysenck, who first received funding from the Pioneer Fund in 1986, but had been well-known as a hereditarian for decades beforehand. Eysenck's best known pro-hereditarian book, The IQ Argument, was published 15 years before he received any money from the fund. It can't be right to say that if a person receives money from the Pioneer Fund at any point in their lives, this causes all research they've done throughout their entire careers to be "associated with" the fund, even research that they did years before they received any fund money.

Victor: as I said in your user talk, I think it would be helpful if you could write a new version of the lead which incorporates any changes you think ought to be made from what has been suggested here.Boothello (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There's little of interest that anthropologists have said on this topic. This is because they generally deny the existence of intelligence and races, and refuse to operationalize them in any manner. Most anthropologists deny the legitimate existence of such a field of study as race and intelligence, so you don't need more than a few sentences to summarize their obscurantist views on the topic.

Psychology, together with behavior genetics, is the only discipline that has a sophisticated and intellectually serious tradition of research on race and intelligence. This is the reason why psychological research dominates this article. It cannot be otherwise.

The fact that some people dislike the policies that Pioneer has sometimes supported has no bearing on the legitimacy of the research it has sponsored. This research has been published in peer-reviewed publications, and has been and continues to be widely cited by other academics. Why did you refer to Pioneer grantees as "researchers" with scare quotes? Do you realize that all of these people are tenured professors, have extensive publishing records in peer-reviewed journals, and sit on the editorial boards of such journals? They have the respect of their peers, which is what matters, not smear jobs by ideological crusaders. These crusaders have attacked Pioneer and attempted to link this research with fascism, Nazism and whatnot precisely because they are unable to disprove the research findings -- when scientific criticism has proven to be ineffectual, they have resorted to unscientific criticism.

As pointed out by Maunus earlier, the reason why many hereditarian researchers have received funding from Pioneer is that Pioneer has often been the only one to agree to fund research with politically incorrect implications. It has never been shown that Pioneer has tried to pressure or influence their grantees in any manner. It's a tiny organization with barely any staff, so it's a bit weird to see how much attention is paid to it. (Meanwhile, the "environmentalist" side has received and continues to receive lavish funding from the government and the richest foundations, yet they have failed to identify any environmental mechanisms that could explain the racial IQ gaps.) All hereditarian researchers have published on other topics and received grants from other funding sources, so I don't see why their grants from Pioneer would somehow define them as scientists. Finally, most of the research used to support the hereditarian view was not sponsored by Pioneer.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how to respond to this, so it's probably better not to in any substantive manner. I'll just remind everyone that reliable secondary sources are what guide content creation, not our own personal opinions about which fields are correct in their interpretation. aprock (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If Victor doesn't want to propose a lead, how about this:

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate for centuries, particularly after the invention of intelligence tests in the early 20th century. There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and any discussion of their connection involves studies from multiple disciplines, including psychology, anthropology, biology, and sociology.

Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests performed in the United States have consistently demonstrated a significant degree of variation between different racial groups, with the average score of the African American population being lower—and that of the Asian American population being higher—than that of the European-American population. At the same time, there is considerable overlap between these group scores, and individuals of each group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum. Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, most notably in Africa, although these studies are generally considered less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores. While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause.

Hunt and Carlson describe four contemporary positions regarding the cause of racial IQ gaps. The first is that these gaps reflect real difference in average intelligence, which are caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function. A second position is that differences in average cognitive ability between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors. A third position holds that differences in average cognitive ability between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves. Finally, a fourth position is that there is no such thing as race, and that any comparisons between races are therefore meaningless.

Several professional organizations have issued statements describing their positions in this dispute. A 1994 statement from the American Anthropological Association states that intelligence cannot be biologically determined by race, because race has proven to not be a meaningful way to explain variation in biological traits. In a 1996 statement, the American Psychological Association has said that while there is evidence for differences in average IQ between racial groups, there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, there is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation, and no adequate explanation for the racial IQ gap is presently available. According to a 1996 statement from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, although heredity influences variation in behavior within populations, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, and all peoples possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture.

Most of the changes that I made were based on Victor's suggestions, though I also replaced the summary of the four positions in the third paragraph with the summary by Hunt and Carlson. Seems odd that Hunt and Carlson's list of positions doesn't include agnosticism (isn't that their own position?). But at least now this summary isn't borderline original research, as it was when the article said that there were four positions without citing a source for that.

If anyone disagrees with these changes, I should point out that the justifications he gave for why he wants these changes haven't been addressed by anyone. On any Wikipedia article, decisions can only be based on policy-based and evidence-based arguments, not based on editors' personal opinions. So that's the only thing I can base my proposal on. If anyone disagrees with Victor's suggested changes, they need to specifically address the reasons he gave above for why these changes are necessary.Boothello (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that most of my objections I made above still apply here. For example, the statements by the professional organizations need to come first before we get to making sure that every one knows that there are racial differences in IQ scores. Intelligence precedes IQ. Your "pointing out" that "these changes haven't been addressed by anyone" is not factually correct. Both myself and others have responded to Victor. The fact that you tend to agree with Victor and disagree with others does not mean that they haven't "been addressed". So no, this will not work either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll note as well that the lede is not appropriate. Instead of focusing on the lede, it would probably make more sense to edit the body of the article, and when that has been more evenly developed, rewrite the lede as a summary of the article. aprock (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Boothello, I like your latest proposal. Two small suggestions:

• second paragraph: remove "most notably in Africa", because there are plenty of data from everywhere

• fourth paragraph: the AAA and the AAPA statements are short declarations, whereas the APA one is an extensive, detailed report, which should be made clear

--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Marek said above that he thinks the paragraph on group statements should be moved to before the one on the test score data. I think the lead flows better with the paragraphs in their current order, but I'll change the order if it's the only way to get enough consensus to add this to the article. We definitely need to get rid of the current lead, which I think is opposed by consensus at this point. And even with the paragraphs in Marek's suggested order, I still think this proposal will be an improvement over the current wording. What do you think about changing the order of those paragraphs?Boothello (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The test score data should be presented first, because the group statements are largely comments on those very data. Nevertheless, if moving the paragraphs is what it takes to get people to agree on using this new lede, then let's do that.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree with aprock. no point in editing the lede. the dominance of fringe views in the rest of the article has to be eradicated first.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It will likely take months to fix all of the NPOV problems with the rest of the article. In the meantime there are a lot of issues with the current lead that have been pointed out, such as the unsourced information mentioned nowhere else in the article and the way it misrepresents UNESCO's position (by stating only their 1950 statement and not the 1951 revision). We also have a specific proposal about what to replace the current lead with. There's no reason to not fix these problems with the lead while we have the opportunity. I can replace the current lead with the new version right now and then at least THAT issue will be dealt with, and we can get on to discussing the article's other problems.

With this in mind, I hope it's ok to go ahead and replace the lead with the new version, including the changes suggested by Victor and Marek. Even if the new version isn't perfect, it's clearly an improvement over what's there now. Otherwise we'd have to leave this discussion unfinished right when it was close to reaching a consensus.Boothello (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Re: [6]. The first paragraph's fine (and is in fact an improvement). The rest no so much. For example the sentence: Several professional organizations have issued statements describing their positions in this dispute. assumes that a dispute exists. What dispute? Even if there is one, it should be defined first. The previous wording was better. Also, the previous wording was more to the point and direct. I am going to revert the change, but will restore the first paragraph changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your change to the second paragraph makes it now contradict itself. The first sentence says that the position of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists is the same as that of the American Anthropological Association, but the last sentence of the paragraph describes the AAPA statement in detail, making it clear that it doesn't say exactly the same thing as the AAA statement. You also seemed open to Victor's point that the UNESCO statement is too old to be mentioned in the lead - you said "I see it as relevant but on this one I'm willing to be convinced - it'd be nice to find something more up to date". So I'm not sure why you added that back now. At the very least, if we're going to mention UNESCO's position we need to base it on the 1951 version of their statement, not the 1950 version. This paragraph is misrepresenting their current position by claiming that the 1950 statement represents UNESCO's position but not mentioning that this statement was replaced the following year.

Also, Victor Chmara and I both thought it was better for the paragraph about group statements to come after the explanation from Hunt and Carlson about what the dispute is. The only reason this paragraph is stating the positions of professional organizations before it defines the dispute is because you disagreed with me and Victor, and wanted the summary of organizations' positions to come first. If you don't like it now, then we can put these paragraphs in the order that Victor suggested.

It's very troubling to see that you doubt whether a debate over race and intelligence exists at all. I said before that having an informed opinion about what does and doesn't belong in an article requires a certain amount of knowledge about its topic. If a person is unfamiliar enough with any academic debate that they don't believe a debate to exist at all, they should not be trying to influence the content of an article about that debate.Boothello (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me if you still think the positions of professional organizations should be in the second paragraph, before the article has explained the nature of the debate on this topic. The only reason this is in the second paragraph is because you wanted it to be there. If now you're complaining about it being there, I'll move this paragraph to after Hunt and Carlson paragraph as Victor and I suggested originally.Boothello (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific about where this supposed "contradiction" occurs? I don't see it. The AAPA statement is a bit more detailed than the AAA statement but they do say essentially the same thing (more or less that nobody, save a few cranks, thinks that the hereditarian position has any value). Likewise as far as I can see the UNESCO statement is not currently in the lede so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where did I "add it back in"? It might be a good idea to put it back in though.

Your and Victor's position has been noted. But there is no general agreement for it. The position of professional organizations is of primary interest here. Note that these positions are on the subject of "race and intelligence", which is what this article is about, rather than with regard to IQ tests specifically which is a subtopic (already given way too much prominence both in the article and in the lede). Also, please stop ignoring the input of other editors into the discussion, even though they may not comment as intensively as you (or me for that matter). Most of them do in fact disagree with you or Victor.

It's very troubling that you are trying to exclude input from people who don't agree with you by down playing their concerns with phrases like "it's very troubling...". In other words, drop the insinuations please. I'm perfectly familiar with the subject matter - don't make personal attacks please. There is nothing in the article which documents the existence of such a debate in mainstream sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to ask an extremely simple question. In your previous comment you said you disagreed with describing the position of professional organizations before the dispute itself is defined, because you said "Even if there is one, it should be defined first." But earlier in this discussion you said the positions of professional organizations should come first, so that's what the article does now. When I followed your advice, you complained about the specific thing I'd done at your suggestion. I am trying to ask you whether based on that, you would agree with me putting the paragraph about the positions of organizations after the Hunt and Carlson paragraph, so that the dispute can be defined first as you requested in your previous comment. No one else other than me and Victor has offered their opinion on this, and he and I agree with your most recent opinion that the dispute should be defined before the positions of organizations are given. Please answer this simple question on a content issue.

The more you post in these articles, the more apparent it becomes that something needs to change. In the edit summary for my last edit, I linked you to this page from the manual of style about what the format of the first sentence of an article needs to be. Now that you've removed the article's original first sentence, the new first sentence clearly does not meet these criteria. But you don't seem to care, because as usual, you immediately unreverted when I reverted you. You've been involved in Wikipedia for years, so it can't just be that you don't understand what the format for an article's first sentence should be. It looks like you're deliberately ignoring this guideline.

And here is the fundamental basis for all of the edits you've made in this topic area, described as clearly as possible in your edit summary here: that you believe there to be no debate over this topic at all, so in your opinion the hereditarian hypothesis should be given no more coverage than geocentrism. Regarding your statement above that there is no documented debate about this in mainstream sources, the existence of this debate is documented not only in the sources currently used by the article, but by the exact sources we have been discussing for the past few weeks, such as Hunt and Carlson’s paper and the APA report. This is described in the preamble of the APA report, the first page of the Hunt and Carlson paper, and also the beginning of the chapter on group differences in the 2011 edition of Mackintosh's IQ and Human Intelligence. Neither of the first two sources are pro-hereditarian, and Mackintosh's book is strongly anti-hereditarian. It shows that even opponents of the hereditarian hypothesis acknowledge that this topic is "fiercely debated" (to use Mackintosh’s words).

But even though two of the papers we have been discussing here describe the existence of a major debate over this topic in their opening paragraphs, you say that as far as you know there is no mainstream source which documents the existence of a debate about it. How can you not be aware of what's in the opening paragraphs of the sources we've been discussing for more than a week? The only way it's possible is if you haven't been reading the sources that we discuss, and that you also haven't read any of the other sources (like Mackintosh's book) which document the existence of this debate.

No one else has agreed with you that this debate does not exist, and Maunus and Victor Chmara both explained in earlier comments what's wrong with your claim. You had nothing to say in response to either of them about this. Now I have just provided three mainstream sources that show you are wrong. Without getting outside help from other editors, there is nothing I or anyone else can do to get you to understand that this is what the sources say. You won't listen to the opinion of other editors, you won't follow the lead guideline, and you also are making claims about the source material that makes it clear you are not reading the sources we discuss. If this doesn't change I think it is completely appropriate to say you should not be participating.

If you're going to post in these articles, you will need to make an effort to learn what the source material says, especially about obvious topics like whether there is an R&I debate. Otherwise this is likely to eventually end of at AE again.Boothello (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The title, and subject, of this article is "Race and intelligence", not "Race and intelligence debate". So the present first sentence describes the subject perfectly well and is in conformity with lead guidelines which you link to. To pretend that a debate exist is a standard tactic of fringe viewpoints attempting to give themselves legitimacy. The fact that major professional organizations don't think the herediterian POV has much merit is illustrative here and that's why it should be mentioned first. This is like proponents of creationism pretending that there is a "debate about evolution". I mean, there is one, but it is a political not a scientific one.

If you're referring to this [7] work then note that the word "race" does not appear in the preamble. I don't have access to the Mackintosh book so I can't comment on that.

Furthermore the wording of the removed sentence was The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate for centuries - where and how is this "for centuries" supported? This basically seems like it's calling claims made by 19th and early 20th century racists and eugenicists a "debate". If you want this to be here then we should be precise and spell out that old racist theory posited a relationship between race and intelligence but they have since been debunked.

You keep claiming that others agree with you and maybe Victor does, though I don't think the same thing is true for Maunus. However, there are plenty of other editors here, like aprock or mustihussain or VsevolodKrolikov or Ramdrake or AndyTheGrump for instance, who do not agree with you though it seems like they simply do not have the same patience as I do in trying to engage you in meaningful discussion.

The bottom line on this "debate" thing is that, aside from a few cranks who get their money from racist organizations like the Pioneer Fund, no serious person believes that some races are intellectually genetically inferior to others. I hope you're not seriously saying that this is something that is up for discussion (and the whole "oh but the tails overlap so it's possible for a black person to be smarter than a really dumb white person so it's not really racist" line is an obvious piece of bunk) or that there is an actual debate about this. You have not given any legitimate reason for that sentence to stay in the lede.

Also, let me repeat my question above - what is this contradiction you're referring to?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Marek, you are clearly uninformed on this topic, and have not read much of the literature. Your personal opinions on this topic are irrelevant; only the views presented in reliable sources count.

Firstly, the scientific discussion about race and intelligence simply did not emerge only with the invention of IQ tests. You may believe that people like Linné, Hume, Darwin, and Galton were worthless racists, but nevertheless they were prominent scientists and thinkers who believed that race and intelligence were linked. To claim that race and intelligence was not an issue before IQ tests is a gross misrepresentation of history.

Secondly, the claim that "no serious person believes that some races are intellectually genetically inferior to others" is contradicted by reliable sources. For example, in the 1980s, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman conducted an anonymous survey of more than 600 randomly selected North American social and behavior scientists. One of the questions asked was, "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" 14% of the respondents declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation". In other words, the modal position among scientists in relevant fields was that at least some of the b-w gap is genetic in origin; the environmental determinist view you support was much less widespread.

In 1994, 52 leading scientists published a statement called "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[8]. Quoting from the statement: "There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too." Note that these are not just some random 52 people. They are the who's who of intelligence research and behavior genetics, and they say that genes may be implicated in racial differences in IQ.

In 2005, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, a journal published by the American Psychological Association, published an issue devoted to the race and intelligence question[9]. Most of the issue consists of a target article by Rushton and Jensen, who argue that race differences in intelligence are heritable. I suggest you read the issue to catch up on the research in this field. Another recent source is Earl Hunt's book Human Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, 2010), which devotes about 50 pages to the topic, concluding that it is not possible at this point to say whether race differences in IQ are due to genetic or environmental differences.

You have claimed that only "a few cranks" argue that race differences in intelligence may be heritable, but you have not presented a single source in support of that (ridiculous) view, and the sources I just described blatantly contradict you. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the relevant literature before making further comments or edits to the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Victor, I have refrained from offering my forthright and blunt opinion on what I really think about people who hold views such as the ones being described here - that some races are intellectually inferior to others - and I expect that you reciprocate by keeping whatever opinions you might have about my level of "informeness", as well as your patronizing suggestions to "familiarize myself" with the topic to yourself. Otherwise there's really no possibility of discussion. Those kinds of comment border on personal attacks. As the policy says, discuss content not editors.

So, still keeping quiet about editors, let's move on to content.

First I never said that scientific discussion about race and intelligence simply did not emerge only with the invention of IQ tests. Nor have I said that Linné, Hume, Darwin, and Galton were worthless racists. Nor did I say race and intelligence was not an issue before IQ tests. You're piling strawman upon a strawman here. What I said is that the discussion of race and intelligence carried out in the early 20th century and before before cannot be characterized as a scientific debate. And the major contributors to this discussion were eugenicists and racists. Now, one can certainly respect Linne, Hume, Darwin and Galton for the great contributions to human knowledge they made, and at the same time think that their views on race and intelligence was so much racist junk. Just like we can admire Newton for the calculus and the physics, yet we smirk when we read about his belief in alchemy.

Second, your example of Snyderman and Rothman is no evidence of a debate. All it shows is that a secret anonymous poll, revealed that in the 1980's some social and behavioral scientists privately held racist views, perhaps a greater number than one would expect (well, it was the 1980's). Either that or the survey design was crap (which I believe is a criticism that has been made). That's not a "scientific debate" that's just some people holding racist views, essentially in private.

The 1994 Statement, aside from being pretty outdated as well, has already been discussed above to death and likewise it's no evidence of a debate. And yes, you're right that "that these are not just some random 52 people". We can start with the non-random Linda Gottfredson, a grantee of the racist organization Pioneer Fund.

The 2005 Psychlogy, Public Policy and Law issue appears at first glance to be more recent, except for the fact that it's a retrospective. Of the six articles included, 2 are by Rushton and Jensen themselves, one is by another Pioneer Fund grantee, Linda Gottfredson, and the other 3? Well, the Sternberg paper says:

J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (2005) purport to show public-policy implications arising from their analysis of alleged genetic bases for group mean differences in IQ. This article argues that none of these implications in fact follow from any of the data they present. The risk in work such as this is that public-policy implications may come to be ideologically driven rather than data driven, and to drive the research rather than be driven by the data.

The paper by Nisbett opens up with:

J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (2005) ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black–White IQ gap. A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black–White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black–White IQ gap is nil.

This isn't a debate, it's two academics telling Rushton and others to STFU already and stop embarrassing the profession. The third paper by Suzuki and Aronson is written in more standard mealy mouthed academese so it's not as blunt as Nisbett and Sternberg but it says pretty much the same thing.

So what we have here is a wrap up of a debate that never really happened. Personally, I would question the professional judgment of the psychologists and editors of the journal in even providing a space for such views but whatever, I'm not a psychologist (yes, it's true), and it's not my profession. At best this lets you say is that there was something resembling a debate on race and intelligence within a subset of the psychology profession. Though if Psychology were a living person I might be inclined to consider that a BLP violation.

The bottom line is this: a claim is being made that a real scientific debate exists on whether or not black people are inferior to white people.. There is no such debate. In making such a claim the statement that you and boothello want to include suggests that in this supposed debate there's a non-trivial possibility that the racist view that black people are in fact intellectually inferior to white people has some validity. This is misleading (among other things). It's a violation of WP:FRINGE. And yes, it is only a small group of "researchers", awash with money from a racist organization like the Pioneer Fund who like to pretend that such a debate exists. Again, this is the same tactic that creationists use in pretending that there is a "debate about evolution" to try and legitimize their non-scientific views - and there's no debate there either, despite the fact that you can find some folks with Biology PhD's who don't believe in evolution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The contradiction was in this version of the article. It has been fixed now, please don't add it back.

The APA report describes the 1990s controversy as having been initiated by The Bell Curve. If you are at all familiar with The Bell Curve, you must be aware that what made it controversial was not just that it talked about intelligence, but intelligence and race. Mackintosh's book and the Hunt and Carlson paper are even more explicit that this controversy is about race and intelligence specifically. If you haven't read either of those sources, you should. Acquainting yourself with what the source material says is your responsibility, and it's disruptive for you to make edits based on the viewpoint that you suspect exists in sources that you have not read.

Maunus commented here about what he thinks of the argument you're using and makes a similar point to the one made by Victor Chmara. The only time that VsevolodKrolikov has commented on the changes you were making to this article, in this comment, he also disagreed with you. Ramdrake and AndyTheGrump have agreed with you before on other issues, but neither has agreed with your claim that a debate over race and intelligence does not exist. During the few months that I've been involved in this article, you are literally the only person who I've ever seen claim that. More importantly, in all my time studying this topic academically, never have I encountered an academic professional claiming that - and you have failed to provide reliable sources saying anyone does. I've given several that say the debate exists, and there are many more.

In summary: your claim here has been rejected by me, Victor Chmara, and Maunus (in the comment that I linked to), and no one has expressed agreement with it. Therefore, I think it's accurate to say that consensus opposes you about this. As for the lead guideline, this guideline states that the first sentence should be a declarative sentence that explains the reason for the topic's notability, and contains the title of the article in bold as early as possible. This is true of the sentence you removed, but not of what's now the first sentence. With this is mind I am going to add back the first sentence of the article, and cite it to Hunt and Carlson so that it is now sourced.Boothello (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)