Talk:Race and intelligence

Inclusion of Rindermann survey

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To highlight the important part:

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

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

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

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

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

Ashkenazi Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoption studies page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source used in the article contradict the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly a faulty result, the opinion of that Wikipedia admin is contradicted by mainstream academic sources. This issue needs to be examined at a higher level I think. Spork Wielder (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Spork Wielder, It was not the opinion of a single admin, but process that gathered opinions from many editors. This is pretty much the top of the pyramid as far as making content decisions on Wikipedia goes. Overruling it would require running another RFC, with similar levels of attendance, that goes the other way. That's not really likely to happen. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the result of the RfC was examined at two higher levels (AN and ArbCom), and was sustained. NightHeron (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Did you read the article on the letter you linked? Most of the people who signed it were not experts in the field they were commenting on. The opinions of non-experts expressing opinions outside their area of expertise doesn't carry much weight. A similar strategy is frequently used to attack the science on climate change and even, in some cases, evolution - throwing together a list of scientists from unrelated fields who know nothing about the topic but who have strong feelings about it regardless; it's easy to find a ton of such names on any culture-war issue, but it certainly doesn't represent any sort of meaningful academic consensus. If you want some recent research rather than culture-war salvos from 30 years ago, see [17][18][19][20], in addition to many sources already in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Your own source contradicts the claim that there is a scientific consensus that genetics explain 0% of the variation. First of all it states that there is ongoing debate, not a consensus about the topic. Second of all, it states the following for example:

" When the between group variance attributable to trait-associated SNPs is compared to the observed phenotypic between-group variance, over 85% of the between-group variance in IQ is not attributable to additive genetic effects, where at most 4.7-8.7 IQ points could be attributed to such genetic effects"

How can a source that says at most 4.7 - 8.7 IQ points could be attributed to genetic effects be used to make the claim that there is consensus that the effect of genetics is 0? The paper says that there is a possibility that the contribution of environment is 0, but surely this is different from claiming there is a consensus its zero?

Here is another Wikipedia article in direct contradiction with the opening paragraph of this article.

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:101A:AB08:BD42:6253 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What you're claiming does not make logical sense. (1) Of course there's still "controversy" about whether some races are genetically inferior to others, just as there is still controversy over whether anthropogenic climate change is just a fabrication of climate scientists, about whether evolution is a fabrication of atheists, about whether aliens landed at Roswell, and so on. Controversies persist because huge numbers of people persist in believing in fringe theories. (2) When researchers write that they have rigorously shown that the genetic effect could not be more than a few percent, directly contradicting what racialist hereditarians say, that does not imply that they believe that it is greater than zero percent. It just means that they cannot prove that it's zero percent. The inability to prove rigorously that a fringe theory is false is not evidence that it's true. We can't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. (3) The Wikipedia article you cite describes a book that supports the POV of the racialist hereditarians, but the fact that Wikipedia describes that book and the reactions to it does not imply that Wikipedia supports its POV. NightHeron (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: You're of course absolutely correct here (except that "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" was an open letter published in the Wall Street Journal, not a book). But I'd argue that it's entirely okay at this point to ignore this IP range. Picking one very specific statement about the limits of one specific method and using it to misrepresent the overall argument of the cited piece is really beyond the kind of thing we need to take seriously, even if we assume good faith. See their repeated exercise of similar strategies above. Seems to me that it is quite enough, as you did in your initial reply here, to refer them to last year's RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Sorry -- I didn't notice that the IP referred to two different Wikipedia articles, and my comment related only to the IP's second example.

The IP doesn't seem to understand the difference between something being notable enough to have an article and being mainstream. Of course all sorts of fringe people and books have Wikipedia pages.

You make a good point that, when confronted with illogical POV-pushing, it's best to resist getting drawn into repetitive arguments. NightHeron (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Aha, my apologies for the overzealous correction. I hadn't noticed the second wikilink. Generalrelative (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Except there is no similar debate in the scientific community about whether creationism is true or whether humans contribute to climate change. I find it unconvincing that the following professional bodies, from which the experts surveyed where randomly chosen, would be filled with "racialist hereditarians". It seems to me that Wikipedia has chosen that its editors are in a better position to know what the research says than the experts from the following institutions:

• American Educational Research Association (120)
• National Council on Measurement in Education (120)
• American Psychological Association:
• Development psychology division (120)
• Educational psychology division (120)
• Evaluation and Measurement division (120)
• School psychology division (120)
• Counseling psychology division (60)
• Industrial and organizational psychology division (60)
• Behavior Genetics Association (60)
• American Sociological Association (education) (60)
• Cognitive Science Society (60)

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:101A:AB08:BD42:6253 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Any claims that the scientific consensus believes genetics plays no role in intelligence differences are simply not supported by the evidence in the field.

I would like to remind editors that there is a spectrum of fringe theories, and arguments in favor of a genetic component to racial differences in intelligence are a clear Alternative theoretical formulation on the far end of the spectrum, rather than obvious pseudoscience like creationism on the other end. Continued attempts to compare a reasonable alternative theoretical formulation, with a well-documented line of inquiry and support in the mainstream scientific community, to something like creationism or Big Foot, strains the limits on assuming WP:GOODFAITH. Likewise for implying that the science is settled in this area of inquiry, and that the only controversy is due to "racialist hereditarians" akin to creationists or climate deniers. Such framing of the debate, combined with the ongoing refusal to allow any additions to the article that suggest a genetic component may be involved, strike me as exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP over the article and POV pushing.

Edited to add: When a source says "over 85% of the between-group variance in IQ is not attributable to additive genetic effects", it is a BIG stretch to conclude that the author really believes the effect is 0% but just can't prove it. Notice the author himself concludes the evidence is "consistent with genetic differences contributing little [emphasis added] to the Black–White gap". If he really thought the evidence showed that genetics had no effect, why wouldn't he say that, rather than little?Stonkaments (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

1) It seems you have not understood the source you are quoting at all. The author is saying that even using the flawed methodology favored by hereditarians "over 85% of the between-group variance in IQ is not attributable to additive genetic effects". The author is very explicit about this, stating that because "the assumptions of this model violate core principles of modern population genetics (such as no gene-environment interplay, gene-gene interactions, and similar allelic effect across populations), there is little reason to expect the genetic contribution to be this large in reality."

2) After pointing out a whole host of questionable methodological assumptions underlying this "best case estimate for genetic contributions to group differences in cognitive performance", the author concludes that "the mean-expected-difference provided here [4.7-8.7 IQ points] is likely an overestimate and should be thought of as the maximum mean difference attributable to genetic variation due to genetic drift. It is also important to note that the direction of the mean difference could favor Africans or Europeans with equal likelihood." This may be too subtle an argument for someone trying to trawl the article for shreds of doubt as to the state of the scientific consensus, but for a scientist this is actually a pretty devastating take-down.

3) You ask If he really thought the evidence showed that genetics had no effect, why wouldn't he say that, rather than little? If you had read carefully you would have seen that the author actually does remark that his results are consistent with the possibility that "the genetic contribution to the IQ gap is zero". Because this is a scientific paper, (rather than, say, an editorial) one wouldn't expect him to state his opinion on the matter, no matter how strongly held, so the absence of such a statement shows nothing. What the author does emphasize is that his study "demonstrates that patterns of genetic differences between African and European populations in the 1000 Genomes Project dataset is consistent with neutral evolution and insignificant genetic contribution to the Black-white IQ gap. In other words, the patterns observed in this study can be explained without appealing to the core tenets of the hereditarian hypothesis." That really is scientist-speak for the hereditarian hypothesis is like belief in the existence of Bigfoot: not based on evidence.

4) The article already does discuss alternative theoretical formulations, as well as the reasons why the scientific mainstream rejects them. Presenting them as though they were valid would violate WP:FRINGE per the findings of the RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I admit I did only a cursory scan of the source based on the discussion above. Nevertheless, my point stands that it is flawed WP:OR to conclude that a best-case estimate of 15% genetic contribution "just means that they cannot prove that it's zero percent". This source is very clear that it is a take-down of the "hereditarian hypothesis", which he defines as "a significant portion of differences in cognitive performance between Black and White populations are caused by genetic differences due to natural selection". As the IP correctly pointed out, refuting this "hereditarian hypothesis" is different from the question of whether there is any genetic component.

Anyway, that was a minor side point. My larger concern is what I see as WP:OWNERSHIP and POV pushing by relegating the genetic component argument to the realm of pseudoscience like creationism and Big Foot. Per IP's second source, in response to the question, "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?", only 15% of experts who responded voted that the gap was "due entirely to environmental variation", vs. 45% who voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation" (and 1% who said it was entirely due to genetic variation). Granted that book was written nearly 40 years ago, but shouldn't that give us pause? Can you honestly say that the article accurately portrays this level of dissent? Even the "History of the controversy" section gives the impression that the argument for a genetic component was always a fringe view held only by racists to justify slavery and other atrocities. Stonkaments (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for being amenable to clarification. But I was responding to you, not to the IP's 0% argument, which seems like a red herring to me. The actual language that appears in our article is: "the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups", and this is very well sourced. Whether that means literally 0% or merely an "insignificant" contribution isn't necessary for us to parse because the language ("genetics does not explain") comes straight out of Nature.

As to my own beliefs, one of the recent reports cited by Aquillion above stated them quite well: "[T]he claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new)." [21] I don't know enough about that IQ Controversy book to speculate on its merits –– but even if it did accurately capture the state of professional understanding 40 years ago that would hardly be relevant to this article. We have a separate article on the History of the race and intelligence controversy for just such information.

In any case, let's all please try to respect the way Wikipedia works, which includes respecting (and not continually relitigating) the results of high-profile RfCs like [22]. There is really no room for ambiguity in the result, and no reason to accuse others of violating policy for working to keep this and related articles in accord with that result. Generalrelative (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the Nature article? I know it's been referenced before but I don't have it in front of me. I think it's important to look at the context of the article before concluding that there's no need to distinguish between no contribution and a >0% but insignificant contribution. I'll also note that Nature included the qualifier "an emerging consensus" that the Wikipedia article fails to reflect. The Wikipedia article also adds "and that observed differences are therefore environmental in origin", which I don't believe is reflected in the Nature article. Would it be better to simply quote Nature verbatim? And the Wikipedia article also states later on, "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups."--which is problematic because of the additional assertion of "no evidence", which I don't think is supported by the Nature article nor the RfC.

Surely the history of the debate is relevant to the article, hence why we have the "History of the controversy" section at all. Maybe it should rewritten as a WP:Summary style article, but as is it is very biased and misleading IMO.

I disagree that there is no ambiguity here. The fringe determination doesn't remove the responsibility to do the work and evaluate the evidence to determine to what extent there is a consensus that there is no genetic component, how widely held and what is the evidence in favor of the minority view that there is a small genetic component, etc. Can we agree that it's wrong to characterize a proposed genetic component as obvious pseudoscience akin to creationism? Stonkaments (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll reply to your questions in turn but will not be continuing to debate these issues ad infinitum. My silence should not be confused with tacit agreement. I am simply tired of debating the same points again and again.

1) The Nature editorial from which this language comes is [23]. The quote is "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."

2) With regard to the statement "observed differences are therefore environmental in origin", this is WP:BLUE. There are only two options here (i.e. genetics or environment), and it is not WP:OR to make this clear to the reader. Further, in the body of the article we have four WP:RSs supporting the statement "Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap." The Nature editorial we rely on for framing our "genetics does not explain" language is far from our only source here; it's just explicit in a way that research articles typically cannot be.

3) Would it be better to simply quote Nature verbatim? No, this sentence in the lead summarizes a wide variety of WP:RSs. Again, we simply follow the phrasing of the Nature editorial because editorials are written in explicit, everyday language, and editorials in Nature are the pinnacle of the genre, at least as far as science is concerned.

4) With regard to the statement "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups", this is backed up by six WP:RSs. See especially Hunt and Mackintosh for a discussion of the lack of evidence. Both are reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and neither of them can be accused of being overly harsh toward the hereditarians, yet both acknowledge the total lack of evidence to support the idea of a genetic link between race and intelligence.

5) We include only the most relevant information in the schematic History section in this article, saving all the nitty-gritty for History of the race and intelligence controversy. If the IQ Controversy book is not discussed at length in a recent secondary and tertiary sources, it doesn't rises to the level of inclusion here. Your opinions about what is "biased" and "misleading" are not going to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with your POV.

6) The RfC found: "There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory". That is indeed unambiguous. We do not promote WP:FRINGE on Wikipedia. We do report on its existence where appropriate, as we have done in this article (and more extensively in the History article). Pretending that there is some scientific rationale for believing that some genetic link exists between race and intelligence would clearly violate this finding, and no amount of hair-splitting will alter that.

7) I'm not sure about creationism, but I stand by my Bigfoot analogy, which I've articulated a number of times. I think it captures well the persistence of belief in a thing in which some people desperately want to believe, and about which there is absolutely no evidence. There never was any valid scientific rationale for believing in the intellectual inferiority of Black people either, yet a lot of people still evidently cling to it. I won't speculate here as to why (but my personal views about them are not flattering). Generalrelative (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)