Talk:Race and intelligence

Edit war

Someone is getting rid of my contributions just because he thinks the author i referenced to is controversial. The information i used has been used in many publications and websites. You can not disregard information based on your personal oppinions. This is what i added "Globaly IQ scores range from average of 70 in sub saharan African Countries to approximately 110 average of IQ score in East Asian countries of Singapore, China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. Most Western European Countries and The USA, Canada and Australia have an IQ score of approximately 100." I will be reversing the changes until someone clarifies to me that wikipedia policy block controversial sources. IQ and Race itself is controversial. Abedidos (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

There is no edit war at the moment but if you insert those changes again without agreement you will get a warning for edit warring and that can lead to a block. Lynn is a highly controversial figure and without more third party citations that material has no place here. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Further, these figures are not just controversial, they are unscientifically sourced. See, e.g. the 2020 European Human Behavior and Evolution Association statement that these figures are fundamentally unsound and unreliable.[[1]] The WP article where these figures are discussed, Nations and intelligence quotient, still needs a ton of work to eliminate lingering WP:PROFRINGE, but that is no reason to allow PROFRINGE to creep back into this article. Generalrelative (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Abedidos: (I concur with the replies of the two editors above.) And I'm afraid what may be cited on websites and other publications is not relevant here. On Wikipedia there are policies governing the inclusion and use of sources. The deletion is not based on my personal opinions, but on Wikipedia policies. The findings of Richard Lynn, as mentioned, are considered highly controversial-dubious and disputed (see the article on him linked here above). Your addition gives undue prominence to controversial material that is not broadly accepted, and considered by many to be WP:FRINGE (and the work of Lynn was determined to be fringe in this Wikipedia RFC discussion, see here: [[2]] . For more information, please see WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MAINSTREAM. Skllagyook (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Genuine question: if these figures are controversial in the field, doesn't that suggest that they are notable and likely deserve mention in the article (along with appropriate context and criticism, of course)?

Anyways, here is one study that attempts a more precise and systematic review of the the literature than Lynn's work, with respect to sub-Saharan Africans specifically. Does anyone have institutional access to read the full report? One snippet says: Our review of the literature on the performance of Africans on the Raven's tests showed that the average IQ of Africans on the Raven's tests is lower than the average IQ in western countries. However, the average IQ of Africans is not as low as Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy (2008) maintained. Can we agree at least on this study's claim that the average IQ of Africans is lower than the average IQ in western countries? That seems uncontroversial, as I haven't seen any studies that show otherwise. And of course we should also take care to include the relevant context and criticism about the uncertain reliability of IQ tests in other countries due to cultural factors, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is WP:FRINGE, not notability. Of course scientific racism is notable, and we have a long article on it. So is creationism, climate change denial, and alien abduction. NightHeron (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If we are to take them at face value, how are these geographic comparisons relevant to the topic of "Race and intelligence"? –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that geography is not the same as race. In particular, geography is physical reality and race is a social construct. However, casting aspersions on the continent of Africa is a form of racism. NightHeron (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

1. The article already contains geographical comparisons (standardized test scores of UK students with different African countries of origin). So in terms of consistency, I don't see how this would be grounds to object to including this data.

2. Geographical differences have long been analyzed in connection with race and intelligence, with the Flynn Effect likely being the most prominent example. This makes sense, because geographical differences can have important implications in the debate surrounding the causes of racial differences in intelligence tests. Stonkaments (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

New Source

Hello,

Russell Warne's new book [3], published in October by Cambridge University Press, discusses race and intelligence in a few chapters. This book describes a lot of new research about race and intelligence that hadn't previously been covered in secondary sources. It was previously established at the RS noticeboard [4] that Cambridge University Press is generally a reliable publisher when covering this topic, and Warne's book is listed [5] by Cambridge as one of their top 15 books of 2020.

This book seems to be a high quality secondary source that gives an up-to-date overview of this article's topic. Can we use it to update this article?

Gardenofaleph (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This may be an acceptable WP:SECONDARY source but individual claims will need to be evaluated relative to overall scientific consensus. Simply being on CUP's "top books" list is not, I would argue, especially significant. See e.g. this other book from the same list [[6]] which questions the existence of black holes and dark matter, along with the theory of the big bang, all of which have general support from mainstream physicists. It seems to me that this list is curated toward potential best-sellers, and being controversial (i.e. rather than mainstream) is a selling point. Generalrelative (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: The book (in the chapter on racial differences, toward the end) also cites fringe sources such as Fuerst and Emil Kierkegard among others, which also seems somewhat suspicious. Skllagyook (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Judging from the blurb on Amazon and from his membership in the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, Warne seems to promote fringe views. In fact, he seems to take pride in contradicting what scholarly consensus and mainstream media are saying. As Generalrelative says, the fact that a book is published by a respectable publisher does not mean that it's a reliable source. Each source has to be evaluated on its own merits, since there are quite a few fringe books published by leading publishers. It's telling that in Warne's blurb he claims that it's untrue that preschool can improve a child's cognitive ability. This is the fringe view that was famously expounded by Arthur Jensen in his 1969 article attacking preschool programs targeted at children of the poor and racial minorities. NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Right. It may be worth emphasizing that preschool improving cognitive ability is very robustly demonstrated. See e.g. [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]] and [[11]]. Characterizing this fact as a "myth" is not a good sign. Generalrelative (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative, that part of the Amazon blurb is somewhat misleading. The book's actual chapter on social interventions such as preschool doesn't dispute that these can raise IQ. What it argues is that the claims some people have made about these interventions, such as that they can cause a permanent increase of IQ 30 points, are greatly exaggerated.

NightHeron, please explain something to me. Calling an idea "fringe" is another way of saying that major secondary sources don't take the idea seriously. But a few months ago you removed a lot of material from this article that was cited to Earl Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence, which was also published by Cambridge University Press, with the justification that this material in Hunt's book is "fringe" as well.

When the topic is presented a certain way by major secondary sources, how can your argument be a valid reason for excluding material from those sources? Determinations about what is or isn't "fringe" are supposed to be based on how the topic is presented in secondary sources, so using that as justification to remove or exclude content from those sources seems like a contradiction. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it (since I'm unlikely to purchase this book myself), but do note that the blurb on CUP's own site says the same thing: [[12]] Seems they're trying to play up the controversy –– and that in the chapter itself Warne is going after a straw man argument.

Regarding Hunt, I can't speak for NightHeron but I read the book in question and found that in several instances its arguments had been mischaracterized in this and related articles. Hunt does sometimes express opinions that would be considered fringe here, and these do not belong on Wikipedia, but he is always (or at least generally) careful to delineate these opinions from his reportage of the state of scientific understanding. That's why, I would argue, he can be considered RS for reportage. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The views that Warne and like-minded writers promote about race and intelligence were discussed at great length by roughly 50 editors, who reached a consensus about the fringe nature of claims that some races are genetically superior or inferior in intelligence to others, see [13]. Note that there might be secondary sources published by reputable publishers that advance a certain POV, but that doesn't disprove the fringe nature of the POV. For example, Elsevier publishes a secondary source [14] promoting homeopathy, which also conflicts with mainstream science and therefore is regarded as fringe on Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC mentioned above does establish that books published by Cambridge University Press are considered reliable sources, but it also speaks to the fact that not all reliable sources (even those published by experts in the field) represent the mainstream viewpoint. Is there evidence that Warne's views on race and intelligence satisfy our due weight requirements? –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the number of high-quality secondary sources we allegedly have to exclude, based on the "fringe" label, suggests that the decision to exclude these sources is a mistake. Looking only at books published by Cambridge University Press, since that has been established as a reliable publisher, there are at least three such sources: Warne's book, Rindermann's Cognitive Capitalism, and some of the material in Hunt's textbook. Undue weight would be a valid argument if there were only one such source that's contradicted by all the others, but there must be a some quantity of coverage of the viewpoint in secondary sources where this stops being a good argument. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a basic logical fallacy at work here. I'll wager that most of the people who "study" Bigfoot believe in the existence of Bigfoot. Serious zoologists don't often take the time to debunk the existence of Bigfoot because that's not seriously in question. So even if most of the books written by "Bigfoot experts" claim that it is real, this will not result in an article written as though Bigfoot were real. Similarly, since few serious geneticists believe that genetic differences in cognitive capacity between human population groups are likely to exist (and none believes that evidence for such differences currently exists), they don't spend a lot of time debunking the claims of psychometricians who do. Hunt is circumspect about this; Rindermann is not. I'm not sure what Warne is. The point is that Wikipedia needs to report the state of actual scientific understanding, regardless of what an individual publisher puts out. Generalrelative (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

With regard to CUP, you might also take a look at the Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (2011), particularly its chapter 15: "Race and Intelligence", which you can preview here: [[15]] There's nothing there that seems WP:FRINGE to me, or that would be out of place in the pages of Nature or Science –– very much unlike the kinds of things Rindermann publishes. Generalrelative (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In 2018, Cambridge University Press also published a chapter about international IQ differences by Richard Lynn in The Nature of Human Intelligence. Lynn's chapter in that book is chapter 16. But I assume you would not allow that chapter to be cited either, even though this book is another high-quality secondary source.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Are you arguing that our judgement as Wikipedia editors about "the state of scientific understanding" should overrule the balance of viewpoints that actually exists about this topic in reliable sources? It sounds like that is what you're arguing, especially now that you're removing all of the reliable sources that support one viewpoint from the Nations and intelligence article. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

1) Yes.

2) Certainly not. To get an idea of the state of scientific understanding, I'd suggest running a 20-year search of "race and intelligence" at Nature and Science. You will find plenty of articles stating things like "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races" ([16]) and "Race is therefore not a particularly useful category to use when searching for the genetics of biological traits or even medical vulnerabilities, despite widespread assumptions" ([17]; see also [18], [19] and [20]). You will find none supporting a genetic connection between race and intelligence. The most you will find is a couple which entertain the possibility that connections between cognitive abilities and race-like genetic clusters may be discovered in the future (see [21] and [22]). Even where the ethics of researching links between race and intelligence are defended ([23]), it is clearly stated that "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences." Generalrelative (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the extensive discussion of this issue that I cited earlier in this thread ([24]), in which about 50 Wikipedia editors participated and multiple reliable sources were examined for scientific consensus. The RfC was closed with a decision that the POV that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is a fringe view that has to be treated on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Lynn, Rindermann and several of the other promoters of this fringe view were discussed. Lynn, in particular, through his ties to Mankind Quarterly and similar enterprises, has long been known as an advocate for white supremacist views. His papers do not comply with WP:RS, irrespective of the publisher. You're free to disagree, but your personal opinion does not trump consensus of editors, and editors are not obliged to relitigate this issue for your benefit. NightHeron (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point it is unnecessary to relitigate these issues. I hope that the OP will be satisfied with the good faith efforts of editors who have engaged with them here and accept the existing consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy. Generalrelative (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is educational attainment and Academic performance used as indicators of IQ score in the article which is about Intelligence and race? As far as i know Intelligence is measured through IQ tests not accademical tests. Abedidos (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit Dispute

In the section "Group Differences" in IQ scores, the performance of Black African pupils in educational attainment in the UK is mentioned as it is an indicator of Intelligence. The page as the title implies is about the measure of intelligence which is only measured by IQ tests and not educational attainment or other Standardized tests aimed at dictating the qualifications of students academically, nevertheless the Academic performance of Black African pupils are mentioned and compared with white british pupils in an article which deals about Intelligence(which is measured using IQ tests). In the 2nd paragraph of the section" Group Differences" the author also mentions the Academic performance of Indian, Bangladeshi, Afghan, And Pakistani pupils as a comparison. I wanted to add some other Racial Groups to the paragraph and i did but since have been undid because the editor thinks that it is unrelated to the paragraph. If it is unrelated to the paragraph why are other racial groups mentioned and used as comparison then? Why cherry pick some racial groups and leave others? I dont get it. What can be done and can anybody explain to me the reason behind it? And also why the whole section "Group Differences" only focuses on black and white differences of IQ score? Abedidos (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. You make a good point that the sentence in parentheses about South Asian scores is also irrelevant to the point of the paragraph, and so I removed it. I hope other editors agree. The paragraph in question provides balance to the first paragraph of the section, which talks about standardized test performance among US racial and ethnic groups, in which African American scores on average are below other groups. It's very relevant to explain that the reverse happens in the UK, both in terms of standardized test scores and other measures of academic performance. NightHeron (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid IQ testing is not the same as other academic standardized tests. We do have an IQ difference in UK in which Black Africans score lower than whites in General. The standardized tests you mentioned are not the same because in the first paragraph it is about IQ testing not academic testing which is the case in the second paragraph.I think you agree with me that the standardized tests in UK are governmental tests aimed at testing the qualifications of students in academic knowledge. An IQ test score still shows a difference in UK where black Africans score lower. Academical performance and Intelligence Quotient are very different. Abedidos (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not true. Black Africans score higher in UK tests than whites, especially white boys. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In the first paragraph we also need to remove the mention of SAT scores because SAT scores are not necessarily IQ test. An IQ test is the only way so far in knowing the IQ of a particular person. Abedidos (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abedidos: I agree with User:NightHeron. Standardized tests such as the GCSE and the SATs are both highly correlated with IQ and (like IQ) are considered/argued to be related to intelligence, and are different from the kinds of test ordinarily given as part of school classes (the SAT was originally based on an IQ test and meant to test reasoning as well as information), thus it is relevant (though the true connection of IQ itself with intelligence is also debated). The subject of the article is "Race and Intelligence" not "Race and IQ score", thus other related tests putatively connected to intelligence (and highly correlated to IQ) are also relevant (and academic performance also, to a somewhat lesser extent though substantially, is IQ correlated and intelligence-correlated). In the UK, different African groups have different average performances (as the test scores show) with some being above the average and some not (and as far as I know, there is no IQ data broken down for the specific African groups in the UK), and/but group (and individual) GCCE performance correlates with IQ performance in the same age range. Skllagyook (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

SAT scores record performance in Standard Attainment Tests. IQ scores record performance in IQ tests. Both are imperfect proxies for intelligence in western societies. SATS (and GCSEs) are also a good proxy for (lack of) engagement with "the system". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I very much agree. The ability of both kinds of tests to measure intelligence is imperfect and limited. But both have either some connection and/or some claimed connection to intelligence, and so are relevant here. Skllagyook (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course they should be mentioned, provided that the mention comes with a sanity warning (which the article generally does, tbf). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

i am sorry but GCSE is not an Intelligence test whatsoever. SAT test is different from that of GCSE. "The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is an academic qualification in a particular subject, taken in England, Wales,[1] and Northern Ireland. State schools in Scotland use the Scottish Qualifications Certificate instead". It is an exam for academical purposes. I know there are some corelations between SAT scores and IQ scores as we all expect students with Higher IQ are more likely to score High SAT scores as well. The paragraph which mentions about Black Africans in UK performing better on academic attainment is not related to intelligence test whatsoever. Can you cite me a source if any that proves GCSE can prdict intelligence? GCSE exams in UK test an acquired knowledge, while an IQ test measures your abilty to solve problems unknown to you or with no previous preparation prior to taking the test. Dear Wikipedia editors can GCSE exams which test your aquired knowledge on Mathematics, Reading and Writing a good prediction of Intelligence as Skllagyook claims. One thing the paragraph did not even mention is that a child or student with college educated parents is more likely to perform better in school tests. Black African immigrants have higher educational attainments in UK specially Nigerians and Ghanaians. Also in the 1st paragraph of section" group differences" SAT score is used as a sign of intelligence is misleading since the SAT test is not aimed at testing or measuring Aquired knowledge. Abedidos (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abedidos: Yes, the GCSE (which, like the SAT, is an achievement test) correlates with measured IQ (e.g. the CAT IQ test) as well as with the proposed "g factor" component of IQ. The Maths and English GCSE in particular has a high correlation to “g” from an IQ test at about .7-.8 (.67 English, .77 Math; page: 16, table: 2) not very different from the SAT.

See:

"Intelligence and Educational Achievement" By Ian Deary et al.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-educational-achievement.pdf

See the section below entitled "Academic achievement"

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

From that section (some is also found in Deary et al.):

"Achievement test scores are more highly correlated with IQ than school grades. This may be because grades are more influenced by the teacher's idiosyncratic perceptions of the student.[70] In a longitudinal English study, g scores measured at age 11 correlated with all the 25 subject tests of the national GCSE examination taken at age 16. The correlations ranged from .77 for the mathematics test to .42 for the art test. The correlation between g and a general educational factor computed from the GCSE tests was .81. Research suggests that the SAT, widely used in college admissions, is primarily a measure of g. A correlation of .82 has been found between g scores computed from an IQ test battery and SAT scores."

And even school grades (which are also discussed at the page linked above) are relevant to the subject of intelligence (and have a still significant correlation to IQ though less than achievement tests do). As mentioned, the subject of the article pertains to "intelligence" not exclusively to IQ (which, as User:John Maynard Friedman pointed out, is itself also an imperfect measure of intelligence, and whose true relationship to intelligence is debated). Skllagyook (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well do you guys accept CAT tests? If so they show a different story. There is a consensus that highly educated people tend to highyly intelligent, in part because people with high IQs are more likely to go further with their academical education than people with low IQs. However using academical test scores is not a convenient way to predict intelligence. I will publish CAT scores broken down by race. Using CAT makes sense. Abedidos (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know we have CAT test scores available for ethnic groups in UK. Abedidos (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abedidos: Please WP:INDENT. Regarding the CAT, as far as I know, it/the data does not distinguish between different African ethnic groups (who have different average performances) nor am I aware of group CAT data for the age 16 age range (when the GCSE Key Stage 4 is) nor of recent data. Also, depending on the age group it concerns, it can be somewhat misleading, since in some groups of UK-born minorities, test performance improves with age, from earlier childood onward (perhaps as certain minority groups become more culturally acclimated.

The GCSE key stage 4 scores are taken around the age of sixteen and show improvement for some groups over both their CAT and GCSE scores at age 11 and earlier. The CAT sores given from the younger age group even more closely match Group performances at the same age GCSE evaluation stage (Key stage 2). Thus, for example, Pakistani and (overall) black African (for instance) scores rise from their closely correlated age 11 CAT/key stage 2 levels to their respective higher Ks 4 levels seen.

See:

"Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England: Extension Report on Performance in Public Examinations at Age 16"

by Dr Steve Strand

https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7916/1/DCSF-RR029.pdf

From the source:

“Some gaps change very little. For example the relative gap associated with social class, mother’s educational qualifications and entitlement to a FSM did not change substantially over the three time points. Other gaps did show substantial change. For example the gender gap increases significantly, from less than 0.07 SD at KS2 to 0.23 SD by the end of KS4, with the largest shift occurring between KS3 and KS4. The gaps for some ethnic groups decrease substantially, for example Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black African mean scores were significantly below the White British mean at KS2 and KS3 but these gaps narrowed to less than 0.1 SD by the end of KS4, again with the big change happening during KS4.”(page 9) Skllagyook (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

By the logic you are using, using GCSE is also misleading. That is why we started this discussion in the first place. Both can be misleading, in fact all Intelligence measures are misleading. There is no need to chery pick some source and discard the other even if it is reliable. Abedidos (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think; therefore, I am. Not therefore I am. Also, by the way, I think.

Surely, if we're making a conclusion based on an implicit assumption, we must state the assumption first? The sentence "there is no scientific evidence that the average IQ scores of different racial or ethnic population groups can be attributed to any claimed genetic differences between those groups" implicitly assumes that mean IQ scores differ between various ethnic groups, and then goes on to explain that there is no scientific evidence that these differences are attributable to genetics. However, without having stated this implicit assumption first, the explanation looks completely irrelevant and out of place: why would you have to explain something that you haven't even started talking about? It's a bit like when somebody asks you "how is your project going?" and you reply with "look, don't worry about John, he is okay". Surely it would make more sense to reply with something like "even though John got injured today, the injury isn't that serious, so our project is going just fine"?

Also, just a note to @Generalrelative:: why did you revert all of my and NightHeron's edits, which included simple copyedits, instead of just the edit that you didn't agree with? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that the wording "most but not all" that you put in did need to be reverted. In discourse about intelligence differences the debate is often framed as nature vs nurture, that is, the causes of intelligence differences (between individuals or groups) are either environmental or genetic. So "most but not all" environmental (in reference to groups) would imply that some of it is genetic, and there's no evidence for that, as stated in the lead. In other words, saying that the differences are caused by environmental factors (even though not all the environmental influences are known or well understood) is equivalent to saying that they're not genetic.

Concerning your change in the first paragraph of the lead, other than my revision of the wording I didn't see anything wrong with it. I don't think it logically "needs" to be there, but I think it's probably better than the current text. The current version (the version before your change) has a logical problem in that the words "In particular" at the beginning suggest a close relation to the preceding text that concerns the disputed claim about IQ being a measure of intelligence. But even if someone believes that IQ is a measure of intelligence, it does not follow that group differences have anything to do with genetics; these are two completely separate issues. Another reason why I don't see anything wrong with your suggested addition to that sentence is that the following paragraph starts by describing the early measuring of group differences in IQ scores. NightHeron (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I'll be happy to defer to your judgment regarding the first paragraph. You're right that the recent addition certainly doesn't need to be here (the analogy to the Cogito is logically dubious, and the "don't worry about John" statement is even more so), but if you think the current version needs work I'm open to that. Perhaps though we can add more circumspect phrasing surrounding the introduction of group-level IQ score differences in the spirit of the Nature editorial board statement quoted in the thread above: "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races". [25]

@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: In addition to what NightHeron mentioned about your addition of "most but not all" above, which was spot-on, you also added the word "absolute" to the phrase "myths of black intellectual inferiority" so that it read "myths of absolute black intellectual inferiority". This strikes me as WP:WEASEL wording suggesting that some relative form of black intellectual inferiority is anything other than a myth. Your only other edits appear to have been fixing an M-dash, which I have reinstated (I admit that I missed this when reverting you), and your addition of "in turn," in place of "and", which did not seem especially helpful but which I've reinstated in the interest of compromise. Generalrelative (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Actually, my wording was "most to all", which allows for the possibility that no genetic factors are at play here. It also improves on the accuracy of the current wording, which attempts to rule out the possibility that some genetic factors are at play ─ something for which there is likewise no evidence.

@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: I apologize for my misreading. My only excuse (admittedly not a good one) is that I (mis)read it the way many readers would be likely to, that is, as suggesting strongly that there is probably a genetic component. The present wording is: Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap. This is correct. Available evidence points exclusively to environmental factors, not to genetic ones. You're right in the sense that you can't usually prove a negative. Scientists haven't proven that Bigfoot does not exist, although the available evidence is that he doesn't. NightHeron (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: That's fine, but I still don't think the current wording is accurate. You're right that you can't usually prove a negative, but the difference between Bigfoot and genetic influence on intelligence is that genetics are very poorly understood; for example, there isn't a single gene that has been confirmed to be responsible for intelligence. Therefore, there simply can't possibly be any evidence for any genetic theory concerning intelligence simply because the science and the technology aren't there yet. For example, evidence for the RNA world hypothesis is insufficient, and evidence for string theory is nonexistent. Does that mean the scientific consensus is that both theories are false? No. It just means that there isn't enough evidence for either just yet. Similarly, the fact that there is growing evidence for some alternative theories does not mean there is growing evidence that either theory is false ─ it could well be that both are correct and there is some theory which unifies both, that both are false, or that both are only partially correct.

To conclude, I think saying that "there is growing evidence that genetic factors do not explain the racial IQ gap" is inaccurate. The American Psychological Association agrees, as they report that there is "no conclusive explanation for the observed differences between average IQ scores of racial groups". In light of this, I suggest we go with my edit and err on the side of making as few controversial claims as possible. What do you say? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That report was published in 1996. A lot has changed since then, especially in our understanding of population genetics. For a very cogent and accessible explanation of why the genetic explanation for racial IQ differences is implausible (written by an actual geneticist and neuroscientist), see [26]. Generalrelative (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I still think we'd need some very conclusive sources to rule out a genetic influence on group differences in intelligence, as it's a pretty significant claim. I found the article that you have linked less than convincing: the fact that intelligence is largely hereditary proves that it can be passed down the generations and hence be selected for, even if the selection is inefficient due to high rates of mutation, and that it affects other traits only means its selection is reduced by default, but that doesn't rule out that in societies which put a higher emphasis on areas which require intelligence (such as, for example, Jews, who have historically gave special value to education) the selection is amplified. Perhaps I'm not versed enough in evolution, but to me it doesn't make intuitive sense. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Science is often counterintuitive like that. See again where the author states: "We need to get away from thinking about intelligence as if it were a trait like milk yield in a herd of cattle, controlled by a small, persistent and dedicated bunch of genetic variants that can be selectively bred into animals from one generation to the next. It is quite the opposite – thousands of variants affect intelligence, they are constantly changing, and they affect other traits. It is not impossible for natural selection to produce populations with differences in intelligence, but these factors make it highly unlikely. To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What’s more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change. Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible." Even the supposed pressure on the Jewish people to become extra intelligent cannot be described as "enormous" and certainly not "persistent over tens of thousands of years". Generalrelative (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: Just because much in genetics is not known, that doesn't mean that there hasn't been considerable work done looking for genetic causes of many things. I believe there's scientific evidence for genetic influence in variation between individuals for certain types of mental illness, for example. There has also been work claiming to establish genetic influence on differences in intelligence between individuals. This work is controversial, but I believe that most experts think there's some genetic role in individual variation. In contrast, the search for a genetic basis for group differences in IQ, like the search for Bigfoot, has led to nothing but weird theories by fringe people, nothing but pseudoscience and racialist ideology. The present wording of the last sentence in the paragraph reflects the situation correctly. NightHeron (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Once again, NightHeron's comments are based on a misreading of my edit. With that out of the way, I added the adjective "absolute" because the most common form of the "black intellectual inferiority" hypothesis is that the average intelligence of black people is lower than that of white people, and hence isn't a "counterexample" to it. I did not suggest that this most common form of the hypothesis isn't a myth ─ I simply clarified that examples of intelligent black people do not disprove it. Finally, regarding my analogies, care to explain in what way they're dubious? The article introduces a conclusion (that differences in IQ scores don't necessarily have a genetic explanation) partially based on an assumption (that differences in IQ scores exist) without first stating said assumption, just as if "therefore, I am" was stated before "I think" and as if "John is okay" was said before explaining why John is relevant to the discussion. As far as I'm concerned, all of this is just basic logic. Am I wrong? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: FYI I'd be happy to continue the discussion of logical entailment on my user talk page (or yours, just ping me), but since it's no longer germane to an ongoing content dispute we should drop it here. Thanks for being a thoughtful collaborator. Generalrelative (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I agree, I don't think this discussion bears any value any longer. Your gratitude is appreciated and reciprocated! Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I'm not sure about the best way to word the last sentence in the first paragraph. Right now it reads In particular, there is no scientific evidence that the average IQ scores of different racial or ethnic population groups can be attributed to any claimed genetic differences between those groups. As I mentioned, "In particular" doesn't belong. Also, "average IQ scores" should be "differences between average IQ scores". Since the main body discusses history a fair amount, perhaps the sentence could say something along the lines of: "Despite a long history of ill-founded claims to the contrary, there is no scientific evidence that the differences between average IQ scores...". That wording is a bit awkward because of the double negative ("to the contrary [of there being] no scientific evidence"). NightHeron (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Good points, great suggestion. I was just working on a wholesale revision of the first paragraph, since upon reflection I see a number of problems with it. Here's what I came up with:

Discussions of race and intelligence, specifically claims of differences in intelligence along racial lines, have appeared in both popular science and academic research since the modern concept of race was first introduced. With the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century, differences in average test performance between racial groups became apparent, though these differences have steadily decreased over time. Further complicating the issue, modern scholarship regards race as a social construct rather than a biological reality, and intelligence has no agreed-upon definition. The validity of IQ tests as a metric for human intelligence is itself disputed. Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics do not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups, and that observed difference are therefore environmental in origin.

Happy to discuss further! Generalrelative (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo, this is the best version, bar a few insignificant imperfections. My main issues are:

• "became apparent" I don't like this because it implies that differences in IQ scores constitue some sort of fundamental truth which was recently uncovered, while in reality it is largely a social phenomenon idiosyncratic to the time. I prefer "were observed".
• "though these differences have steadily decreased over time" The differences between some racial groups, such as Black and White, have been decreasing; however, I'm not sure that is the case for all racial groups, e.g. East Asian and White. Perhaps we should just leave this one out. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, I'll work on incorporating your points and put this into the article. Feel free to fix any further imperfections you see, and if need be someone can revert and we'll continue the discussion here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I like your rewrite a lot. I think the objection to "though these differences have steadily decreased over time" can be addressed by inserting "most of" before "these differences". The main body (in the section on the Flynn effect) discusses this in the case of black-white differences. Also, in the section on early IQ testing, it's mentioned that test results in the early 20th century favored Nordic Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans. Those differences have presumably decreased (or disappeared), although I don't know a citation for that. NightHeron (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad this was an occasion for us all to collaborate constructively. Your suggestion ("most of these differences...") would be less awkward than what I eventually settled on ("these differences have fluctuated and in some cases steadily decreased over time") so long as we can get consensus that it's accurate/verifiable. I was curious about your last point on decreasing group-level IQ differences between Northern and Southern Europeans so went looking for a reference. Here's one: [27] Generalrelative (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your wording is more nuanced than mine, and that's good. I hadn't seen it before I suggested "most of". No need to change your wording. NightHeron (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hold on, what about your last sentence? Are you sure the consensus is that genetics definitively do not have any explanatory power with regards to differences in IQ test performance? I'm not sure that's entirely correct. The consensus appears to be that there is not enough evidence for genetics being a factor ─ not that genetics is definitively not a factor. I think we should change the last sentence to something closer to the previous version. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maxipups Mamsipupsovich: Regarding "absolute" (which you've just put back in), no we don't have consensus on that. I dropped the issue because we had other things to talk about, but my objection still stands. I won't revert now because of the 1RR rule here, but I ask you to self-revert for the reasons I've mentioned above until there's consensus for its addition. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Regarding your question above, yes I am sure that this is the consensus. The most pertinent references I will point you to are the statement by the editorial board of Nature that "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races" (quoted above) [28] and the statement from another contributor to Nature that "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences." [29]. I could go on but this should be sufficient. Generalrelative (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your other recent edits, I don't think they're helpful. Your addition of "as a consequence" misstates the logical relation. The problems with IQ construct validity are more specific than this (as discussed at Intelligence quotient#Reliability and validity). And your addition of "and racial groups are regarded as biologically meaningless in the scientific community" is redundant given that we've already stated that "modern scholarship regards race as a social construct rather than a biological reality". Upon reflection, we could certainly change "scholarship" to "science" here though. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'm just wondering what your solution is to the "counterexample" situation, as the current statement is pretty obviously fallacious.

I interpret both of your sources as saying "IQ differences between populations are predominantly not attributable to genetics" (similarly to how, when I say, "the fact that a fly sat on the rock does not explain the fact that it fell down", even if the fly may have actually exerted some small amount of force on the rock in the right direction), and, frankly speaking, I don't see how we can make such definitive statements as that genetics has precisely 0 explanatory power when we have no idea how it even works. I suggest we approach such a controversial topic with caution and don't rush to conclusions.

I've read Intelligence quotient#Reliability and validity, but all of the issues with construct validity discussed in the section boil down to the fact that the definition of intelligence that IQ tests assume does not match up with many researchers' definitions of intelligence.

I don't view my comment on racial grouping being meaningless as redundant as it performs the same role as the statement that the validity of IQ testing is disputed: it summarises the consequences of the first two clauses of the sentence. Without it, we'd only be describing the consequences of one of the clauses, which is a bit clumsy in my opinion. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1) The image caption reads "Autodidact and abolitionist Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) served as a high-profile counterexample to myths of black intellectual inferiority." There is no logical fallacy there. It's demonstrably the case that people described him this way. You are correct that one counterexample doesn't disprove the existence of average differences, but the myth in question here is not about average differences. It was a rule. The myth in question was that people of African heritage simply couldn't be as intelligent as Douglass manifestly was. This is shown by the fact that people at the time described him as a counterexample disproving the rule. See the sources cited in the first paragraph of Frederick Douglass. I recognize that you were gesturing at something like this by adding the word "absolute", but this did not add any clarity because the existing language was not at all obscure. And it had the (apparently unintended) consequence I described above, i.e. appearing to leave the door open gratuitously for some form of racial inferiority.

2) I don't follow your reasoning here. The first set of authors I quoted just above (the editorial board of Nature writing in 2017) state that attributing the "gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States ... to genetic differences between the races" is false. They don't say "probably false". Whether that means precisely zero genetic input or just effectively zero is not for us to decide or speculate upon because it is irrelevant when it comes to adjudicating what belongs in an encyclopedia (and I would argue if pressed that there is no epistemic criterion we could use to distinguish precisely zero from effectively zero in this instance anyway). The second set of authors (writing in 2009) make an equivalent statement, using language nearly identical to what I used in the sentence in question ("genes do not explain between-group differences" ––> "genetics do not explain differences in IQ"), and explicitly refer to "an emerging consensus". Since that time there has been nothing published in Science or Nature (or their subsidiary journals) that would challenge this consensus, or indicate that it has become any less secure. You can test this yourself by running a search for "race and intelligence" in their archives.

3) This does not appear to address the issue I pointed out, that "as a consequence" misstates the logical relation between the two statements because the one is not a logical consequence of the other. The problems with IQ construct validity could easily obtain even if intelligence were to have an agreed-upon definition. In my view, the first, more general statement on disagreement regarding the definition of intelligence serves to complicate the hypothesized connection between race and intelligence introduced in the article's opening sentence. The second statement on the validity of IQ tests complicates the article's second sentence which specifically concerns IQ testing.

4) I don't follow your reasoning here either, but perhaps that's because I don't see how you could hold the view that the specific statement about the validity of IQ tests is "a consequence" of the more general statement about disagreement regarding the definition of intelligence. Again, in my view this second statement about race seems redundant and therefore just adds clutter to the paragraph.

Note that points 3 and 4 are not a huge deal in my view, but I still wanted to make my perspective on them clear. Since we've already made such good progress together, I'm especially keen to leave this paragraph in as lucid a state as possible. Generalrelative (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to address this claim that "there has been nothing published in Science or Nature (or their subsidiary journals) that would challenge this consensus, or indicate that it has become any less secure", because Generalrelative has made this argument a few times, and in this discussion he used it to block new sources from being added to the article. Strictly speaking, this statement isn't true. This study, published in Nature communications in 2018, found that African, European and East Asian populations differed in the frequency of genetic variants affecting ten traits, one of which was educational attainment years. In genome-wide association studies, EAY is often used as a stand-in for cognitive ability, because it's easier to measure the years of education a person has completed than it is to give IQ tests to tens of thousands of people. If necessary I can provide sources about EAY being used as a proxy for cognitive ability; this is widely-understood and not controversial in behavior genetics research.

I'm not suggesting the Nature Communications paper should be cited in this article, because it does not directly mention intelligence or IQ, so to cite it in this article might be original synthesis. I'm mentioning this paper because the claim that Nature journals have never published anything to the contrary of those editorials is a false statement, and improvements to the article are being prevented based on this false premise.

I'll also mention that this practice of asserting one thing in editorials, while the contrary data are buried in a technical research paper, is a typical practice for Nature journals. As another example, this book review published in Nature called it a "myth" that there are differences between male and female human brains, even though Nature journals have also published several research papers documenting those differences (for example [30] and [31]).

When Nature and its subsidiary journals take one perspective in book reviews and editorials, but their research papers tell a different story, the question is which perspective should be presented in Wikipedia articles. The article Sex differences in psychology mostly reflects the actual research, rather than the editorials, and I'd argue this article should take a similar approach. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

1) You're right that inferring anything about cognitive ability from this study would be WP:SYNTH, and you only highlight why random editors can't be trusted to publish their own inferences on Wikipedia. You've presented no evidence at all support your claim that I am wrong about Nature and Science, or about the persistence of the consensus in question. Why even bother making such a comment?

2) Your implication that the editorial boards of the most prestigious scientific journals are somehow guilty of intellectual dishonesty (or being "out of touch"? or what?) strikes me as pretty bonkers. You're not going to have much luck convincing the community here to ignore what they have to say. If and when studies they publish conflict, we can still trust entities like the editorial board of Nature to serve as a WP:SECONDARY source to determine the overall state of knowledge.

3) FYI I haven't given any indication of my gender. I prefer they/them pronouns on this platform. Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You're making a comment about "editorial boards of the most prestigious scientific journals", in the context of discussing an EDITORIAL published in Nature. Were you under the impression that book reviews and editorials published in academic journals are written or reviewed by the journal's editorial boards? Those usually are just reviewed by a journal's book review editor or its news editor, the same as would be the case in any other high-end magazine. This is why the distinction I was making between journalistic articles and peer-reviewed research papers is so important, especially when the two conflict with one another.

Here’s a quote from Nature's peer review policy: "The following types of contribution to Nature Research journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Matters Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives and Insight articles. Correspondence and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors."

This is basic information about the way academic journals work. Peer review by a journal's editorial board takes months, so how could the news or editorials in Nature possibly discuss current events (which they often do) if they had to go through that process before publication? It's very strange that someone who edits articles about scientific topics would have been confused about this. But this confusion does explain why you thought the editorials or book reviews published in a high-quality academic journal would reliably indicate the academic consensus, even in cases where they are arguing for something that is quite clearly not the academic consensus, as in the sex differences example. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you didn't even click through and glance at the sources I quoted before posting this? The first one (from 2017) is indeed written by the editorial board of Nature, just as I said: [32] Note too that the statement you quote makes clear that reviews published in Nature are indeed peer-reviewed, but that is beside the point wrt the sources I referenced here. Please do your homework before posting nonsense. Generalrelative (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Reviews" in this context means literature reviews, not book reviews. Nature has an entire subset of journals for papers of that type, with names like Nature reviews genetics or Nature reviews neuroscience. Book reviews in academic journals are almost never subject to peer review; that's the standard practice for academic journals in general.

Where does the 2017 editorial say that it was written or reviewed by the journal's editorial board? It was published in their collection of weekly news articles, [33] none of which give an author, as the is standard practice for their brief news articles. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Go back and read the bit you quoted again. It's clear this refers to book reviews, not just articles that present systematic literature reviews (they peer-review letters). But for the moment this is off-topic so I will not continue to argue if you refuse to read what's in front of your eyes.

"This Week" is indeed written by the editorial board. If you scroll down to the next entry in the PDF you just linked, the authors make clear that they are the journal's editors. Just to be (hopefully) done with this, I'll quote it for you: "No editor of Nature will make that mistake again. So, in plenty of time, this week we offer readers the first official notification that chairs must be turned to face the correct way on 21 August." But really, who else do you think would have written it? Some intern? And they just prominently published it in their flagship journal without vetting it? What a preposterous notion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nature's news articles are probably written by Celeste Biever, the journal's chief news editor, or by one of the journal's other news editors. It's unclear how the quote you posted contradicts that. Is it because the quote refers to a news article as having been written by an "editor" (that is, one of the journal's news editors)?

Please think for a minute about the implications what you're proposing. Nature's editorial board is made up of dozens of people, with backgrounds in a variety of fields, most of which have nothing to do with race or intelligence. When a paper is peer reviewed, that is never done by the entire editorial board. It's done by a few reviewers who were selected for being qualified to review a paper on that particular topic, usually including some reviewers from outside the journal. A journal's entire editorial board doing anything as a unit is not something that happens. These are basic norms of how academic publishing works, and Nature would be a very bizarre journal if it were handling it differently. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

At this point I am done humoring you. Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact, and this talk page thread is not a forum for you to present opinions which clearly contradict established guidelines such as WP:MEDRS. I will leave you with one final quote from WP:RSP: "Note that some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature and The Lancet, are entirely missing from this list, most likely because they are so clearly reliable that there was no need to discuss them at all." If you insist on pursuing the matter, take it up with RSN. Further violations of WP:FORUM will be considered disruptive and removed. Generalrelative (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is disagreeing with you that these sources are reliable. The problem is that you have been arguing Nature's news and editorials represent the academic consensus, and so reliable sources that take differing perspectives can't be cited in this article. Three editors (Maxipups Mamsipupsovich, Gardenofaleph and now me) are telling you the argument you're using here doesn't make sense, and Gardenofaleph explained in detail why your underlying premise about journals' editorial boards is false.

For a broad journal like Nature, which represents basically of science, it is simply impossible to have an editorial board with an expert from literally every scientific subfield. The point of peer review is to solicit the opinions of EXPERTS IN YOUR FIELD, specifically. An editorial board in a generalist journal could not possibly represent “academic consensus” about a highly technical topic in the fields of psychology and behavior genetics. As someone with a career in academia I also can confirm that journal editorials are not usually reviewed by (expert, outside) peers, and shouldn't be taken as representing academic consensus. Repeating this argument is treading close to WP:IDHT behavior. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year. All the sources I've cited in discussions since then have been in the interest of assuming good faith and explaining this consensus to skeptical editors, including that previous discussion about Warne's book. Since the current derailment of this thread has been augmented by another voice, I will at least steer it toward the proper forum. You can now debate this issue at: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Nature editorials as aids in determining / articulating consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The study in "Nature" seems to have detected evidence of significant population differences in three of the ten traits (height, waist-to-hip ratio, and schizophrenia) rather that in educational attainment though it is mentioned/tested for (and the other traits they test for).

From the study:

"We show that SNPs associated with height (P=2.46×10−5), waist-to-hip ratio (P=2.77×10−4), and schizophrenia (P=3.96×10−5) are significantly more differentiated among populations than matched “control” SNPs..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04191-y

In another source it is also mentioned that genes that seem to influence educational attainment in groups of European descent may have significantly less predictive power for African Americans.

"...First, our within-family analyses suggest that GWAS estimates may overstate the causal effect sizes ... Without controls for this bias, it is therefore inappropriate to interpret the polygenic score for educational attainment as a measure of genetic endowment.

Second, we found that our score for educational attainment has much lower predictive power in a sample of African-American individuals than in a sample of individuals with an European ancestry ..."

https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/genes-success-not-exactly

Skllagyook (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Look closely at the tables in the supplementary data. The population differences in frequency of EAY alleles were smaller than for some of the other traits this study examined, but the differences for EAY alleles still were statistically significant.

And yes, I'm aware that EAY alleles have lower predictive power in African populations than in European populations. This finding is consistent with what we'd expect to see if group differences had a genetic component, but I wasn't arguing that it constitutes proof. As I said in my last post, I was merely commenting on the claim that Nature journals have never published anything to the contrary of those editorials, because that statement isn't true, and it would be best if people here could stop saying that. Gardenofaleph (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, you only highlight why random editors can't be trusted to publish their own inferences on Wikipedia. You've presented no evidence at all to support your claim that I am wrong about Nature and Science, or about the persistence of the consensus in question. Squinting at data and hand-waving about what it means do not change this. If you're qualified to publish on this topic in a scientific journal, by all means go out and do so. But until you do your opinion on what this study might imply about race and intelligence is irrelevant. Generalrelative (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You wrote:

"And yes, I'm aware that EAY alleles have lower predictive power in African populations than in European populations. This finding is consistent with what we'd expect to see if group differences had a genetic component..."

I don't think that's necessarily true/it cannot be assumed. It could also be more that high EAY alleles characteristic of Europran populations are more likely to be known because European (and increasingly Asian) populations have been significantly/a lot more sampled and studied than African populations (and the relationship between the alleles found in them and their EAY) - which is what some authors have suggested - (African populations, especially since they gave been separated from the ancestors of European/Eurasian populations for a very long time, may have their own other characteristic EAY alleles not found or rarely found in Europeans and similar groups). The conclusions it suggests are as yet unclear (especially since the alleles so far identified only predict a fairly small fraction of variance even in Europeans), and interpretations are best left up to WP:RS. Skllagyook (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)