Talk:Race and intelligence

No "direct" evidence for a genetic component

Breaking this out in a new thread, as the previous discussion has stalled. I want to revisit this claim in the article: The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.

Gardenofaleph made a very strong argument that this sentence, as written, is wrong and is not supported by the sources cited[1]. Others have made similar arguments previously, as shown here[2].

For context, the original phrasing was "no direct evidence for a genetic component", but the word "direct" was removed as alleged MOS:WEASEL wording[3]. The fringe determination in the RfC[4] was also cited in support of removing the word "direct"[5], and the most recent revert said "not good wording, implies there is indirect evidence".[6]

As far as I can tell, no argument has been forwarded that no evidence for a genetic component is supported by the cited sources. To review, here is what the sources say:

• Hunt: "Nisbett's extreme statement [that the differences are 100% environmental] has virtually no chance of being true...The real debate is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one."
• Mackintosh: "In spite of claims to the contrary, there is remarkably little evidence that the difference is genetic in origin."
• Kaplan: "no direct evidence" (original phrasing was a verbatim quote from the Kaplan source)
• Nisbett et al: "no new direct evidence"

Furthermore, later in the Wikipedia article another quote from Hunt says, in part, "The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence."

So we have all of these highly reliable sources referencing some degree of indirect or circumstantial evidence for a genetic component, including Hunt which is arguably the most reliable tertiary source available. It seems clear the current claim of "no evidence" is false and unsupported by the sources; therefore I propose reverting to the original wording of "no direct evidence", or a similar alternative. I don't find the argument that this would somehow violate the fringe RfC to be convincing. And if it truly is the case where we acknowledge the wording is wrong but determine that it would contravene the RfC to fix it, I would remind editors of WP:IGNORE: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Stonkaments (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I could be convinced we need a modifying word somewhere in that sentence, but I don't think 'evidence' is the right thing to hang it on, because implying a category of indirect or circumstantial evidence leaves open how much (or how little) of it there really is. How about 'The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a significant genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.'? - MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair point. I would support that change. Stonkaments (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Thank you for suggesting that wording. I'd also support that change provided that some words are added clarifying that there is also no scientific evidence which racial group would be the beneficiary of any very small genetic difference in intelligence. This was stated in the source quoted above by Generalrelative: "It is also important to note that the direction of the mean difference could favor Africans or Europeans with equal likelihood." Many people would read a statement that there is no "significant" genetic contribution to the black/white IQ gap to mean that there might be a slight amount of genetic inferiority of blacks compared to whites. As the source says, it is equally likely that whites would turn out to be inferior to blacks. Since a genetic component in group IQ differences is a matter of speculation, one can equally speculate that, if whites had been treated over the last 350 years as badly as blacks have been and if blacks had enjoyed the privileges that whites did, then the black-over-white IQ gap would be more than 15 points. In other words, the wording should clearly indicate that there is no scientific evidence of any race being genetically superior or inferior in intelligence to any other race. NightHeron (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A possible sentence to add: "Nor is there any scientific evidence as to whether people of African descent or European descent would be favored by any very small genetic difference in intelligence that might exist." NightHeron (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, how about "fuck no", as a starting point? You are arguing for the kind of weasel words the racists have been trying to add for a decade. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

References

The framing of this debate as "genetic inferiority" is tiring, inflammatory, and arguably disruptive; speculation about a black-over-white IQ gap of greater than 15 points is unfounded and similarly unproductive. As for the claim that "the direction of the mean difference could favor Africans or Europeans with equal likelihood", one primary source should not be relied upon to the exclusion of the many more reliable secondary and tertiary sources that do not support such a claim. Stonkaments (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Please stop your personal attacks against me, which violate WP:NPA. I am not being disruptive or inflammatory. In the context of discussing a black-white IQ gap, it is highly misleading to suggest that there might be a very small genetic explanation, since that suggests that a between-group difference, if there is one, would necessarily favor whites. In other words, it reinforces implicit biases against black people. It's not "inflammatory" to acknowledge this reality.

Why are you taking offense and reacting with such hostility to the notion that a racial difference in intelligence could favor blacks? NightHeron (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: @NightHeron: For what it's worth, I oppose these proposed changes in wording, though I recognize that they come from a genuinely collaborative place. As I stated above, pretending that there is a scientific rationale for believing that some genetic link exists between race and intelligence would clearly violate the RfC consensus, as well as the cited sources. The OP is welcome to try to defend their interpretation of WP:IGNORE before WP:AE, but I suspect that the verdict is more likely to be WP:NOTHERE. Generalrelative (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I agree wholeheartedly that we need to take special care to avoid any misleading or ambiguous claims in this article. I believe the best way to do that is to be thorough and meticulous in presenting well-sourced information in a clear and neutral way. My specific objection to adding the additional sentence "Nor is there any scientific evidence as to whether people of African descent or European descent would be favored..." is with regards to sourcing and WP:UNDUE—that claim is based solely on one primary source, while we have a number of other more reliable source that do not support that claim. Adding that would make the article worse, not better. I feel that the wording MrOllie proposed is careful and neutral as-is.

@Generalrelative: Can you explain how the proposed change in wording to "no evidence for a significant genetic component" would violate the cited sources? As I mentioned in the OP, I have never seen that argument made, and the excerpts provided by Gardenofaleph indicate the change would in fact align more closely with the sources. Stonkaments (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec)@Generalrelative: I think you're right. Stonkaments' responding to my attempt at a new wording by personally attacking me -- like the SPA's ridiculous attacks on you earlier -- shows that their only purpose here is to try to overturn the consensus and promote racialist hereditarianism. Their repeated violations of WP:NPA show that it was naive on my part to hope that this could end amicably.

As you have pointed out, we're under no obligation to relitigate the RfC in response to the refusal of some people to accept consensus. All of the claims they are making have been made and refuted many times before. NightHeron (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The most important concerns on this article ought to be WP:Verifiability, and the prohibition against misrepresenting sources. Editorial consensus shouldn't be able to overrule both a basic Wikipedia policy, and one of the administrative remedies affecting this article.

MrOllie's proposed change is an improvement over the current wording, but the only source that it summarizes accurately is Mackintosh. The wording "no evidence for a significant genetic component" seems to be making a statement about the possible size of a genetic contribution, and saying that it must be small if it exists. Mackintosh discusses evidence for a very small genetic contribution in his comments about brain volume, and later concludes that there's "remarkably little evidence" for a genetic contribution. But the other sources say that that the evidence for a genetic contribution is indirect or circumstantial, without taking a position about its possible size. Hunt is very critical of all arguments that the genetic contribution is a specific size (including the argument that it's a size of zero), and describes these arguments (p. 436) as "overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side". So I think MrOllie's proposal is not consistent with what most of these sources say, and the original wording "no direct evidence" is the most accurate summary of the sources.

If MrOllie's proposal is the only one that can gain consensus, though, don't count me as opposing it. It's only consistent with one of the four sources, but I guess that's better than contradicting all four of them Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Speculation is not science. Scientists cannot prove that the genetic contribution is zero. Nor can they prove that it's nonzero. Nor can they prove that, if it's small but nonzero, then it is positive. Nor that it's negative. (Positive means that if it weren't for environment blacks would still score below whites on average; negative means that they'd score higher.) This is the point that's made in the source that Aquillion, Generalrelative, and I have cited. It's a recent reliable source, published in the journal of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Nothing in recent reliable sources contradicts that.

Please keep in mind that the RfC is settled. Wikipedia works by consensus, which means that attempting to continually relitigate settled questions is viewed as unconstructive. NightHeron (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To put the same point another way: A measurement is never a single value, it is always a confidence interval. If the genetic effect is zero, what we measure will always be "somewhere between minus epsilon1 and plus epsilon2", with epsilon1 and epsilon2 being positive numbers. All that happens is that the epsilons will get smaller over time. And the people who believe in a non-zero effect will always be able to say "you did not refute the non-zero assumption". This is logically related to Popper's "possibility of refutation" criterion for science: following Popper, the statement "the value is zero" is science because it is refutable by getting an interval which does not contain zero, while the statement "the value is not zero" is not science because it is not refutable. The burden of proof lies with the non-zero crowd, and until they get an interval without zero in it, science says the effect is zero. The same logic applies to lots of other pseudosciences too. The effect of homeopathy is also measured to be "zero plus/minus epsilon". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Now do the environmental effect to see how meaningless this is. Spork Wielder (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no evidence that Blacks are poorer than whites and that they have poorer access to education in the US? That must mean that someone here must have mastered the feat of editing a parallel universe's Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

None of the studies show there is a consensus that genetics play no role. The study you cited says that the evidence the study uses is compatible with the claim, just as it's compatible with genetics explaining up to 15%. The scientific evidence is compatible with genetics playing a role, which is also what all the (imperfect) surveys of experts suggests is their opinion. I think the wording should be rearticulated as something akin to "the scientific consensus is that the existing evidence is compatible with environmental factors explaining the differences". Any sources cited don't (and as Nighheron said, cannot) rule out genetics playing a role.

There seems to be a misunderstanding where some editors think that "is compatible with environmental explanations" is thought to mean "is incompatible with genetic explanations".

78.16.177.15 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Could you clarify what is the point you're trying to make about speculation vs science and what can be proven? None of the proposed changes to the wording are making any claims as to the level of proof that has been presented, and WP:Verifiability and WP:DUE apply to reliable sources across the board–not only to what science has proven–so I fail to see how those distinctions are relevant here. That said, I could probably get on board with a mention of the uncertainty involved, including Hunt's argument criticizing all estimates of the size of the genetic contribution as "overly preciese", if you think that would be important context. Stonkaments (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the above comment by Hob Gadling, who explained this better than I've been able to. NightHeron (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. But I have a correction and two additions: "science says the effect is zero" should actually be "science says the effect is either zero or so close to zero that nobody has been able to measure it". Please note that this implies that those who believe it is different from zero do not do so because of solid empirical evidence but because of errors such as overgeneralization, cherry picking, wishful thinking, or for ideological reasons. Here another rule of thumb comes into play: Occam's Razor. If you can explain what we see without the assumption that there is an effect, you should. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The garbled attempts at scientific reasoning have no place here, since it is not the place for us to state our opinions. Nevertheless I can't help but laugh at those saying science proves things, or that an observation must be zero, when the explanation of the observation is the point under discussion, and then getting Occam's Razor exactly backwards by positing mysterious unidentified "environmental variables" to reduce an observed difference to zero. I guess this is why we look at reliable sources, not the intellectual mediocrities and social justice activists that edit Wikipedia. Spork Wielder (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the environmental variables, see my response above.

Those are things scientists understand and apply implicitly. The purpose of explaining them was to make some of the editors understand the parts they are missing when scientific sources are quoted, but it was not to be expected that all of the targets would grasp the concept. I'll just say WP:CIR and drop it.

Reliable sources have been quoted above. It is your choice not to accept what they are saying. Wikipedia's choice is different from yours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hunt says: "Nisbett's extreme statement [that the differences are 100% environmental] has virtually no chance of being true...The real debate is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one." This is arguably the most reliable tertiary source that we have, and presents a clear and direct claim that is as close to a refutation of your argument about the confidence interval as you'll get. Just because he leaves open the remotest of possibilities of the effect being zero (as you say, science can never prove with 100% certainty), per Occam's Razor, the best-guess estimate is a >0% genetic component. However, that claim is covered by the fringe RfC and I am not seeking to re-litigate or overturn that here.

But the disputed sentence in the article makes an even stronger claim, saying there is no evidence for a genetic component. This is not a claim about the confidence interval, and I have yet to see anyone make an argument that it is an accurate representation of the cited sources (Generalrelative made the claim but did not elaborate an argument[7]). This is a problem, especially because there is a special restriction on this page about misrepresenting sources.[8]

refutation of your argument about the confidence interval Wrong. What I wrote was just a further explanation of what NightHeron said, and it is all very basic science and independent of the specific race-and-intelligence example. Hunt's opinion about what Nisbett said does not invalidate it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, "no evidence for a genetic component" is a claim about the confidence interval, namely that it contains the value of zero. If it did not, that would constitute evidence for a genetic component. Can we stop this please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Actually Hunt makes exactly the same point as Hob Gadling has above. Scientists cannot prove that the genetic contribution to the IQ gap is zero because, as Hunt helpfully points out, "doing so would require proving the null hypothesis and, as any good statistics instructor will tell you, that is a logical impossibility." (Hunt p.447) Hereditiarians, on the other hand, could indeed have proved that it was non-zero if that were the case, and have consistently failed to do so. This is the meaning of the Hunt quote: "Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now."

Hunt's opinion about Nisbett's view, on the other hand, is just an opinion. And indeed, it conflicts directly with Mackintosh's opinion that "One could reasonably defend Nisbett's argument that the gap was entirely environmental in origin." (Mackintosh p.344)

One more point before I drop this thread: Hunt and Mackintosh are indeed reliable sources on the state of understanding 10 years ago among psychometiricians because that was their area of professional competence. When they speak about genetics specifically (and today's consensus) however, we should take their views with a grain of salt. If there is anyone who is truly open to persuasion that the hereditarian view is wrong (who is not already convinced by the mountain of evidence already presented), I would suggest reading "Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer" by four prominent geneticists –– Ewan Birney, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford, and Aylwyn Scally: [9] I won't be debating this. I know that it's been attacked by know-nothings on all the usual white-supremacist websites. I am also aware that it's a blog post. While blog posts by established experts are sometimes allowed in articles (per WP:RSSELF), I am not arguing that this source be included in this article. I am legitimately trying to inform those who do not yet know why the overwhelming majority of geneticists believe what they do about this topic. Please consider this my last straw of patience for the current crowd of race/IQ truthers. After this my engagement with specious argumentation will be limited to repeating the results of the RfC and reporting sanctionable behavior if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Stop what, exactly? You are ok with the fact that the article's claim of no evidence for a genetic component is contradicted by the cited sources? Would you care to address that? I think that is the whole crux of the matter here. Stonkaments (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing that these prominent geneticists identified the genes responsible for intelligence and found they were uniformly distributed among races. That's way more advanced the state of research I was aware of. Truly stunning and groundbreaking work that ends the debate. Nobel prize winning stuff. One only wonders why they didn't publish their data and methods, rather than asserting it on a blog. Spork Wielder (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a truly ludicrous mischaracterization of what the geneticists say in the source. Among other things, they explain that socially constructed notions of race do not correspond to genetic divisions between populations, and so the concept of race is not useful in genetics. As before on the R&I talk page, this SPA's comments contain plenty of sarcasm and nothing of value. NightHeron (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what they say. "The genetic variants that are most strongly associated with IQ in Europeans are no more population-specific than any other trait. To put it bluntly, the same genetic variants associated with purportedly higher IQ in Europeans are also present in Africans, and have not emerged, or been obviously selected for, in recent evolutionary history outside Africa." What I find especially fascinating, is that despite their strawman dismissal of racial categories, they're happy to use those very categories to state Europeans and Africans have the same IQ variants. Which is it? Unsurprising that this confused nonsense is unpublished. Their "refutation" of the race concept is particularly funny: "If samples are collected based on pre-defined groupings, it’s entirely unsurprising that the analyses of these samples will return results that identify such groupings. This does not tell us that such taxonomies are inherent in human biology." Are these prominent geneticists unaware of the HGDP? Spork Wielder (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are. And they are also aware of the GIGO principle, of Reification, the Law of small numbers, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and the Spurious relationship. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Am I supposed to waste my time explaining why literally none of these things apply? Spork Wielder (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It is, as Generalrelative just explained, contradicted not by "the cited sources" but by an opinion in one of the cited sources. You people do not understand how scientists talk and what they mean when they do, nor can you tell the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion. We all tried to explain it but seem to have failed. I don't think any further explanations will do anything to change the situation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to just one example (of either fact or opinion) from any of the cited sources that supports the assertion that there is no evidence of a genetic component? Stonkaments (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, That is what Hunt is communicating, that there probably is some difference (as there would be between any two randomly selected groups), but it is within the observational error range of the methods we have. This is scientist for 'no evidence' the same way that 'works as well as placebo' is medical researcher for 'it doesn't do anything'. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation at all. It seems to me he's saying that it's abundantly clear (based on circumstantial evidence) that there is some genetic component, it's just a question of how much. Stonkaments (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hob Galding, have you looked at the Hunt source itself, and not just the excerpts from it that various editors are posting here? Hunt definitely is not making the argument that you think he is. He gives a detailed summary of the arguments made by hereditarians, and then says "In general, I find their arguments not so much wrong as vastly overstated. But overstatement does not mean that there is no point to them." This is the context in which Hunt goes on to say, "Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained." So in context, it is very clear that Hunt is saying that the hereditarians have presented enough evidence to demonstrate that the differences are not 100% environmental, but not enough evidence to support Rushton and Jensen's 80% genetic "default hypothesis" (which Hunt calls an "excessively precise statement").

As I said in my earlier post, I understand that consensus is opposed to changing this part of the article, or any of the other articles that the same wording cited to the same sources has been copied to. But I'd like everyone at least be aware of the reality of what's happening on these articles, which is that this is a case of consensus superseding the Verifiability policy. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I only know the few parts that have been quoted here, by any party, but nothing from those quotes convinces me that "no evidence" is wrong. What Hunt says still just sounds like his opinion.

Is there evidence that homeopathy works? No. Well, actually yes, if you insist on answering the question literally, but it is really crappy evidence that does not count because it is the kind of evidence you would expect to be found even if the effect does not exist: bad studies without control groups, small studies with very little power, irreproducible statistical flukes. So, effectively, there is no evidence. If the effect exists, it is so tiny that nobody could reliably reproduce it. Still, there are people who are convinced that it must exist, and continue looking for it.

The race-and-intelligence situation looks very much the same to me: If the effect exists, it is so tiny that nobody could reliably reproduce it. Still, there are people who are convinced that it must exist, and continue looking for it. Hunt is one of them. That is how it looks to me from the quotes.

There are many studies that find that IQs are determined mainly by genetic factors. People who understand statistics will know that such results are not natural laws. They are properties of data sets. If you only use university students in your research, or only US citizens, or only US citizens with specific properties, your results will be determined by the distribution of the parameters you are looking at within your data set. If the environmental conditions of your subjects do not vary a lot - e.g. if you do not look at any people who live in actual slums - the influence of environmental factors will be lower than if you did. If you want to interpret data from another source, which includes people living in slums, you cannot just extrapolate from the more-homogenous-populations studies.

But not everyone who uses statistics understands this. Many people, even scientists, view statistics as a tedious tool, a couple of recipes you follow without having to understand what exactly you are doing. Even published scientific studies are sometimes full of rookie mistakes. Statistical significance is one of the things used by thousands of scientists who do not understand what it really means - see Replication crisis. I think those IQs-are-determined-by-genetic-factors studies are misleading many such math-averse scientists into taking their results for real effects instead of just properties of data sets. Hunt sounds like one of those. Unless he gives actual results from valid studies with the right scope, "no evidence" seems right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hrm... Hunt was the president of the International Society for Intelligence Research, which has historically been at least amicable to the hereditarian view (ie. willing to have its more out-there advocates on the editorial board of its journal). And just reading the section of his book being cited here I see several eyebrow-raising things - he devotes an entire aside to James Watson's controversial comments, where he defends them as factually accurate on every point.^Note _{(Including the bit where Watson said His hope is that everyone is equal, but “people who have had to deal with black employees find that this is not true.” Hunt helpfully notes that this is an accurate statement because "As references in this chapter have shown, in the United States the work performance evaluations of African Americans are, on the average, lower than the evaluations received by white workers. This is true for both objective and subjective evaluations. The difference is much less than the difference in test score averages." I couldn't resist including that as a footnote.)} He also gives massive amounts of focus to Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn. I would also point out that while he presents himself as a neutral observer who refuses to take sides, [10] describes him as a heriditarian, which pretty closely lines up with his career, expressed sympathies, and, of course, stated opinions. Like... obviously scholars exist who support the hereditarian position, but that doesn't make it the mainstream consensus. Hunt doesn't present what he's saying as the mainstream consensus, he just says it's what he believes. And it is fairly notable that even the scholars supporting that perspective tend to cite the same small number of people, which doesn't exactly support the argument that their views represent a broad scientific consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess the peer reviewed literature on the heritability of intelligence is written by people who just don't understand. Luckily we have Wikipedia editor Hob Gadling to show us the truth. Spork Wielder (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not "the peer reviewed literature", only part of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So where does this leave us? To summarize:

• The current wording, no evidence for a genetic component, fails WP:VERIFIABILITY and misrepresents the cited sources, all of which reference some level of indirect or circumstantial evidence for a genetic component. The only argument made that the sources do in fact support the current wording came from (in my opinion) a misinterpretation of Hunt's views tied to a tangential discussion on confidence intervals around the null hypothesis, speculation vs. science, and facts vs. opinions.
• It looks like there is strong opposition to the original wording, no direct evidence of a genetic component, despite being the most faithful representation of the cited sources.
• There has been some qualified support for no evidence of a significant genetic component. While still not an entirely accurate representation of the sources, it would be an improvement.

Can we work towards building consensus on how to incorporate a change to no evidence of a significant genetic component? What additional context or qualifying statements, if any, would be needed to go along with that? Stonkaments (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That summary is obviously biased. The truth of the matter is that the discussion has (1) two editors plus one sarcastic SPA who dislike the conclusion of the RfC on race and intelligence and want to undermine it by changes in wording, and (2) five editors who have been arguing against this. A consensus already exists on Wikipedia, and it does not support introducing weasle-words that suggest that there's scientific evidence that some races are genetically inferior to others. NightHeron (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we really vote to ignore core policies? Neat. Spork Wielder (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I moved your response where it belongs: after the contribution it responded to. But consensus is not a vote, and your interpretation of the source is just your interpretation while the consensus has a different one. So, your problem, not ours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Why should "Hunt's views" be relevant? Science is about results, not about views. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The views in Hunt's Intelligence are relevant because:

1. It is being cited as a source (and his views are being used to defend the current wording, when in fact they argue against it)
2. It is considered a reliable tertiary source, which Wikipedia policy notes "can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics" and "may be helpful in evaluating due weight"[11]. Stonkaments (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a tertiary source for the stuff Hunt gets from other sources and summarizes, but a primary source for Hunt's own view about it. Which part of "Science is about results, not about views" did you not understand? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have one last proposal that I hope might be amenable to everyone, before I bring this to dispute resolution. Would there be support for simply removing the sentence entirely? The sentence that follows, Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap, seems to provide an adequate summary of that section and the current scientific consensus, without the issues of verifiability and misrepresenting sources that have been brought up here. Stonkaments (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I oppose deleting that sentence, which correctly represents current scientific consensus. I would also urge you to drop the stick rather than taking a matter to dispute resolution that was already litigated in great detail in the RfC and elsewhere, including this talk page. NightHeron (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I also oppose deleting that sentence, and I reject the premise that it misrepresents the sources. - MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out in earlier discussion, there is no source that states the existence of such consensus, and all the surveys of experts suggest this is not the case. Even if these surveys like this are imperfect, the burden of proof is upon those claiming consensus is 100% environmental to provide better sources with more rigorous methodology which they have been unable to do. Indeed there seems to be inability to cite any source even with less rigorous methodology that would suggest such consensus exists. It seems people mistake "compatible with entirely environmental explanation" as "incompatible with any genetic factor". I support changing the sentence to something that mentions that something along the lines of "the differences are compatible with environmental explanations".

2001:14BB:70:C4C5:A041:ECC7:B828:6037 (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You're mixing up two very different statements. No one is saying that the scientific evidence is "incompatible with any genetic factor", which would be the same as saying that science has proved that it's zero. Neither is science incompatible with the existence of Bigfoot.

You, too, please drop the stick. NightHeron (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So then we agree that at least some experts think the evidence is at least compatible with a genetic factor? It's kind of an academic question, because we can all see that some do. Anyway, this is clearly going nowhere and needs to go to dispute resolution. Spork Wielder (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You still do not get it. All experts think that, and they will all continue to think it forever, because there is no possible evidential situation which would be incompatible with it. That is trivially true and does not need to be mentioned in the article.

Yes, this is going nowhere because it already has gone somewhere and is there now. The dispute resolution has already happened and does not need to happen again. That is why, as NightHeron said, you should drop the stick. EOD as far as I am concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

All you people are doing is putting words in the mouths of experts. Those who say genetics is a likely factor, are not saying "it's impossible to mathematically prove the genetic effect is exactly zero". That's just something you made up. Spork Wielder (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have raised this issue here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Race_and_IQ:_"no_evidence"_for_genetic_component? Stonkaments (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Direct vs indirect evidence

Flynn's 1980 book "Race, IQ and Jensen" has a chapter on Direct evidence and indirect. Flynn says direct evidence favors an environmental explanation, indirect evidence favors a hereditarian explanation. He says direct evidence overrules indirect evidence. As making a distinction between these two types seems to be a thing in this field of research, it would be a mistake to conflate "evidence" with either "direct evidence" or "indirect evidence". When a source says "direct evidence", Wikipedia should also call it "direct evidence" in the article. --Angillo (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"Current" scientific consensus

MPants at work's recent edit has removed the qualifying word "current" regarding the scientific consensus, with the justification being that there's no need to paint this as temporary when it's not; the data that's evinced this will not change with time. Could you please explain what is the support for the claim that the scientific consensus is permanent and will not change with time? That strikes me as an inaccurate interpretation of the relevant sources, as well as a misunderstanding of the scientific process and the dissenting view as an alternative theoretical formulation on the spectrum of fringe theories (WP:FRINGE/PS). Stonkaments (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Scientific consensus can always change. I took MPants' edit summary to be an argument rather than a statement of absolute fact. To me, the fact that scientific consensus is changeable is a good reason never to include the word current before it, because the effect is to cast doubt on a particular consensus. There's no good reason to do so here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Cici & Williams 2009 is the only cited source that makes a claim about the scientific consensus. They say: 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.[12] (They also say that "plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded", and note that considerations for what is "acceptable" or "politically correct" may influence the debate.)

Per WP:RS/AC, Wikipedia's claims about the scientific consensus should match what is indicated in the sources. The fact that the source explicitly calls it an emerging consensus is important, and Wikipedia should reflect that. Stonkaments (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I'm still waiting for some explanation as to why the qualifier "currently" is necessary that doesn't boil down to instilling doubt as to it's accuracy in the reader's mind. Your argument above about consensus changing is exactly that; the reader should doubt it because it might change. Only this is Wikipedia; we don't work to instill doubt about the veracity of scientific consensus, we simply state it as fact.

As to your followup implying that this consensus doesn't even exist, I'd point out that you've lost this argument over at WP:NORN already, and others have lost this same argument countless times. This question has a binary answer, and without demonstrating that most researchers believe that genetics explains it, that leaves only the environmental explanation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That source was published 12 years ago. The "emerging" consensus has by now emerged. The trouble with the term current consensus is that it suggests not only that the consensus was different in the past (which is true) but also that it is likely to be different in the future (which is false). It is theoretically conceivable that the consensus (like any consensus, e.g., the consensus about anthropogenic climate change) will change, but we don't say "the current scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real." The word current doesn't belong in either case. NightHeron (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that support your view of the current scientific consensus? Stonkaments (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that support your implicit assertion that this consensus is likely to change? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The qualifier "current" (or ideally, "emerging") is necessary in order to accurately represent what the source says about the scientific consensus. Per WP:RS/AC: Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

I am not making the assertion that the consensus is likely to change; I'm simply arguing that consensus can change, and that we should faithfully represent what the sources say about the current state of the scientific consensus. I understand the cited source is 12 years old, so a newer source would be much appreciated, but we can't simply assert that the emerging consensus has "emerged" without reliable sourcing. Stonkaments (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The qualifier "current" (or ideally, "emerging") is necessary in order to accurately represent what the source says about the scientific consensus. Insisting that something is necessary without providing a coherent explanation of why it is necessary, when you have been asked by at least two people to provide a coherent explanation of why it is necessary will accomplish nothing except undermining your own credibility. I should note that the diametric disconnect between what you claim to believe and what you argue for on these talk pages does much the same. If you're having trouble getting at my meaning, perhaps a more colloquial term will express what I'm getting at better: The more you talk, the less convincing you get. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"The fact that the source explicitly calls it an emerging consensus is important, and Wikipedia should reflect that." What is unclear? Stonkaments (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You want to know what's unclear about it? Whether it's true. Your insistence that it's important isn't enough to go on. BTW: Richard Lewontin said that the environmental explanation was "the present egalitarian cosnensus" as long ago as 1970. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments' wikilawyering has got to stop. The obvious purpose of trying to put a word like "current" or "emerging" in front of "consensus" is to plant doubt in the reader's mind. The RfC at WP:FTN ([13]) considered many sources, including statements by major scientific organizations, in reaching the conclusion that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. This does not have to be relitigated every time Stonkaments or another opponent of the RfC tries to weaken statements of that consensus in R&I and related articles. NightHeron (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I just posted a source from 1970 that clearly stated it was the current consensus even then, so if that's not the end of it, we might have to take this to ANI. I mean, there are only three possibilities:

1. It's controversial. The sheer weight of the evidence in favor of the environmental hypothesis, and the sheer weight of evidence undermining the genetic hypothesis falsifies this option.

2. The consensus is that it's genetic. There's not a shred of evidence for this.

3. The consensus is that it's environmental. The evidence supports this overwhelmingly, researchers who disagree with this are "ostracized" and "censured", and we've got two sources straight up saying "this is the consensus", one from 1970, and another from 2009. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI, here is the entire quote from Lewontin's paper: "Such a conclusion is so clearly at variance with the present egalitarian consensus and so clearly smacks of a racist elitism, whatever its merit or motivation, that a very careful analysis of the argument is in order."

This source supports the statement that Jensen's 1969 paper went against the scientific consensus that existed fifty years ago, but it does not support the statement that there is (in the present) "no evidence" for Jensen's position, which is what the Wikipedia article says. Lewontin's article doesn't use the phrase "no evidence" or any similar phrase at all. Whether a hypothesis is correct or incorrect, and whether or not evidence exists for it, are two separate questions. Sometimes there is evidence for both of two competing hypothesis, but the evidence is stronger for one than for the other.

I'm not trying to change the article's text at this stage, because I know last year's RFC doesn't allow it to be changed. So this is just another reminder that despite how many times this has been discussed, the phrase "no evidence for a genetic component" (as opposed to "no direct evidence", which is what the article used to say) still isn't consistent with what most of its sources say. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll just pop in here to note that Gardenofaleph's "reminder" does not represent what most of us think is the case, per the recent RfC at NOR/N and the talk page threads leading up to it. Indeed it has been explained again and again how and why the sources support the language "no evidence for a genetic component". This will not be relitigated here. It just needs to be noted and then moved on from. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You've already had your argument rejected by the community. More than once. WP:HORSE. Move on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Stonkaments, no. Repeat until heat death of universe. Just: no. This is precisely the kind of weaselry that racists have been trying to insert here for a decade and more. In the absence of a credible racially-neutral way of measuring intelligence objectively, there is no way of separating racial variation from systemic bias. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion is at variance with mainstream psychology. Nuclear Milkman (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)— Nuclear Milkman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No it is not: it is entirely in line with the strong scientific consensus. The group that declared themselves to be "the mainstream" are the opposite, they are a tiny minority. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an effective consensus that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence. Despite your claim that there's a consensus genes have nothing to do with race gaps (false), doesn't mean there's a consensus about every piece of nonsense you vomit up here. But I see that lying about a "consensus" for your favorite groundless assertion is the MO here. Nuclear Milkman (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition of a "current consensus" section

Given this articles extensive cyclic argumentation history, I was wondering if it would be worth implementing a "current consensus" section on this talk page akin to the one at Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus to provide a handy link to notable past discussions and consensuses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No source

The talk page header here says: "In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles." That "observed differences are therefore environmental in origin" (quote from the lede of this Wikipedia article) is not published in any of the sources of the article. I think that it should be removed --Angillo (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEADCITE EvergreenFir (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why? --Angillo (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? Because it explains how the lead lacks citations because it summarizes the body of the article? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to add: This claim in the head of the article is not repeated in its body. --Angillo (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Angillo, Sure it is, in a few places. " A 2015 study found that environmental factors (namely, family income, maternal education, maternal verbal ability/knowledge, learning materials in the home, parenting factors, child birth order, and child birth weight) accounted for the black–white gap in cognitive ability test scores.", "Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.", "They consider the entire IQ gap to be explained by the environmental factors that have thus far been demonstrated to influence it, and Mackintosh finds this view to be reasonable." Remember, the lead summarizes, it doesn't repeat sentences verbatim. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie.

A fuller quote from the article lede is:

Today, the scientific consensus is [...] and that observed differences [in IQ test performance between racial groups] are therefore environmental in origin.

Re your first quote from the body (A 2015 study found that environmental factors (namely, family income, maternal education, maternal verbal ability/knowledge, learning materials in the home, parenting factors, child birth order, and child birth weight) accounted for the black–white gap in cognitive ability test scores.):

That sentence from the article body is about what a study found about the black-white gap, whereas the claim in the lede is about scientific consensus about racial IQ test gaps in general.

That differences between blacks and whites are environmental doesn't mean that differences between e.g. asians and blacks are environmental.

And a study found in the body is a weaker claim than scientific consensus in the lede.

Re your second quote from the body (Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.):

Growing evidence indicates in the body is different from scientific consensus in the lede.

Re your third quote from the body (They consider the entire IQ gap to be explained by the environmental factors that have thus far been demonstrated to influence it, and Mackintosh finds this view to be reasonable.):

This is qualified by They consider (they being Mackintosh and his coauthors), so is not making a claim about scientific consensus, whereas the lede is making such a claim.

In summary, the claim in the lede doesn't conform to the article body, should be removed, and can be readded when it conforms to the article body by replacing scientific consensus with Growing evidence indicates. --Angillo (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Right before the "growing evidence indicates" sentence is "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." Both are cited heavily, and together would indicate that current scientific consensus is indeed that any "IQ gap" is due to environmental conditions (unless there are other factors you would like to propose?).

As MrOllie pointed out, the lead doesn't have to exactly match the source sentences from the rest of the article. To me, this seems just like a semantic choice of how to summarize, not a contradiction of the articles' citations. I do agree that if there was a literature review citation that would better support the claim, instead of individual studies. (For reference, there have been several RFCs on this topic.) —Wingedserif (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

When you say "[...] together would indicate that current scientific consensus is [...]" this seems to be drawing, to again quote the talk page header, one of those "conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and are not allowed to be included in Wikipedia. I would suggest removing the claim from the article until this criteria is met.--Angillo (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Bollocks and Wikilawyering. It's close enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've simply re-stated your original argument, rather than answered mine. If we followed your line of reasoning, paraphrasing would be impossible. —Wingedserif (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif, you seem to be saying that because "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." therefore there must be an additional scientific consensus that IQ differences between racial groups are due to environment. The "therefore" is the problem, if that's indeed what you are saying. --Angillo (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I said it could be supported better, but both statements are supported (it is not genetic; it is environmental). If you have non-fringe sources that indicate scientific consensus attributes intelligence to some other factor, please provide them. —Wingedserif (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Please note: The OP is re-initiating the same discussion that just took place on this talk-page (see directly above). The OP of that earlier thread then took the same issue to WP:NOR/N (see [14]), where the admin who closed it determined that the consensus was that the complaint has no merit. It is not constructive to repeatedly raise the same issue in several places because of refusal to accept the outcome of earlier discussions; see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. NightHeron (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, the admin who closed it said it wasn't a question of NOR but a question of editors cherry picking their preferred sources, which I agree with. So it needs to go to the appropriate board WP:FTN. And here's a section. An unargued assertion by "TonyBallioni" seems to be the entirety of the reasoning here. This simply isn't good enough. Frog Tamer (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the OP is an SPA with no contributions before today or to any other article. NightHeron (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Accusations that were only half correct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been emailed that Angillo is a blatant sock-puppet of white supremacist Mikemikev, this is the same user who has had hundreds of sock-puppets going back years commenting on this very talk-page and the Race (human categorization) one [15]. I filed an SPI against this user about a month ago. I suspect Spork Wielder and Angillo are the same person. This Mikemikev character has a history of arguing about race on throwaway accounts. The behavior matches some of his recent blocked socks [16]. I think an SPI needs to be filed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Meanwhile, just ignore this troll per WP:Deny recognition. He gets off on wind-ups.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

[[User:EvergreenFir|}}, you reinstated the comment above by John Maynard Friedman. I interpreted it as talking about me, and calling me a troll and getting off on wind-ups. Both would be false. Maybe John Maynard Friedman could clarify if he was talking about me or Psychologist Guy. --Angillo (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, not true. Could you maybe tell me though private message who the person is that emailed that false allegation to you? --Angillo (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be more in reference to Mikemikev, who you were accused of being a sockpuppet of but a CU determined you were not. I'll {{hat}} the comments though. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was Mikemikev and his sockpuppets. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

No Sources?

Why is nothing in the article intro cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalUsername (talk • contribs)

Standard practice on Wikipedia. The lead summarizes the article body, so the citations are found in the body. - MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really standard practice (many short articles do have cites in the lead), but certainly the norm in larger and 'more academic' articles since this is the academic convention. See WP:LEADCITE for the long answer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It ought to be standard practice, but it is common on articles where people glance at the lead for confirmation and hit the talk page when that is lacking. ~ cygnis insignis 15:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about it for the most part, but I can see some upsides to doing so on an article that attracts fringe POVs, like this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)