Talk:Race and intelligence

Additional archives
Archive index (last updated June 2006)
Race and intelligence references Discussions pertaining to haplotypes and haplogroups Discussion pertaining to planning and organization

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Caste-like minorities table

Modifications to the format of the table

I've volunteered to convert the table to an image file. We need to get a few things sorted out first, however.

• Granting that we're going with a monochromatic scheme, which color would look best? (I personally favor blue or yellow, but I'm open to anything except red.)

• Should the table have a title in the image, i.e. a title above the table as part of the image, or not? If so, what should that title be?

• Should the source be indicated in the image, i.e. as a small yet legible note at the bottom of the image, or not?

• Exactly which of the notes should be included in the image? I'm somewhat puzzled by the current footnotes, as it gives the impression that this table has been expanded by editors rather than being a reproduction of the table as presented in the work in question. Further, if these are footnotes from the original table, I'm not entirely sure whether it is necessary to include them or not. In a quote from a work which references another work with an inline citation or a footnote, e.g. (Scholar et al., 1996), I don't make a footnote mirroring the reporter's footnote, and I don't include a citation on Scholar et al. in the article's bibliography, as it is clear we're assuming the accuracy of the report on the reliability of the reporter. I would think a table should work more or less the same way. This, however, is my personal practice, and I don't know if WP has a MoS standard on this kind of thing. Comments or links to relevant policy would be helpful.

Please post your comments/suggestions immediately under the point being commented upon. Any other relevant suggestions are of course welcome - just add them to the list. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Varoon, this is the diff where the table was first added, so presumably it has no modifications from the source. I would suggest you may wish to use this as a starting point. It should also tell you which footnotes are original and which aren't. I would personnally recommend only keeping the original footnotes (doh!) Hope it helps!

Looking a bit further, it looks like most of the footnotes are from the original addition, but they were somewhat truncated to just the author and sometimes the title of the work it was taken from. Good news is, this confirms the work as at least a secondary source in its own right.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to declare this a secondary source. I think the footnotes make clear that this particular claim is original research on the part of the authors. This doesn't discredit their work in the least. But the fact that they refer to several works as sources for their data does not make the resultant synthesis any more credible than it is. They could be cited as a secondary source on the specific data, but the synthesis appears to be new to them.

I would suggest something of a compromise. Let's add something in the body to the effect that the authors reviewed a number of works to produce this table, and have a footnote which lists all the sources in that footnote. This would eliminate the need to have so much text in the image. Does that sound reasonable to you? (Also, could you give your preferences regarding the questions above?) Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I got bored and made a version... no color changes though to keep the work simple (that can be done later and very easily). What do you guys think? I'm sure as long as we list Inequality by Design as the source of the image in this article, we can list the sources given in the book in the image description. That will cover all sourcing requirements and keep the image clean. T34CH (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I notice at the regular size it can't be read. At 500px it's legible, but the font is fuzzy. Any comments on the fonts used/relative sizing? T34CH (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion: the source of the table itself should definitely be in the image itself, methinks. Also, I'd prefer 550 or 600px - less fuzzy.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I was under the impression that we're discussing the details of the table. There are a number of issues which need to be addressed (please see my fist comment in this section). --Aryaman (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being overenthusiastic there. In order:

• Granting that we're going with a monochromatic scheme, which color would look best? (I personally favor blue or yellow, but I'm open to anything except red.)

Like I said, I'd prefer blue or green, but I'm not particular in the end.

• Should the table have a title in the image, i.e. a title above the table as part of the image, or not? If so, what should that title be?

I'd keep the current title and indicate the source (book and authors) as a subtitle for clarity's sake.

• Should the source be indicated in the image, i.e. as a small yet legible note at the bottom of the image, or not?

I'd put it as a subtitle, right up there. I hate putting important info into legal-size (read nigh-illegibly small) font. Hope it helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly which of the notes should be included in the image? I'm somewhat puzzled by the current footnotes, as it gives the impression that this table has been expanded by editors rather than being a reproduction of the table as presented in the work in question. Further, if these are footnotes from the original table, I'm not entirely sure whether it is necessary to include them or not. In a quote from a work which references another work with an inline citation or a footnote, e.g. (Scholar et al., 1996), I don't make a footnote mirroring the reporter's footnote, and I don't include a citation on Scholar et al. in the article's bibliography, as it is clear we're assuming the accuracy of the report on the reliability of the reporter. I would think a table should work more or less the same way. This, however, is my personal practice, and I don't know if WP has a MoS standard on this kind of thing. Comments or links to relevant policy would be helpful.

I'd can the footnotes. For references, the reader should be directed to the book by the authors of the table. But that's just me. I'm unaware of a MoS guideline on this one, unfortunately.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I put the book ref in the image. How does it look. I think the foot notes in the table are important in case readers want to see where the info came from originally. Cuts out the middle man if they don't have to look up Inequality by Design first. Having the notes in the image description keeps this article (and any other where this might be used) uncluttered. Like I said, this is very easy to change, so feel free to play around with it. Any one can email me if they want the source table to play with. T34CH (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly no Wikipedia rule (or, for that matter, any rule in academic publishing) that says you need to list all the sources used by your source. But I agree it's nice. Here is a suggestion: Don't have footnotes within the table. Instead, give just one single footnote to Inequality by Design, and then add at the end of this footnote, "The authors of Inequality cite the following sources for the information in this table: x, y, z, etc.". This is a compromise suggestion: it gives the individual sources, but doesn't specify which cells in the table come from which. Just an idea. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Since we both seem to approve of blue (and we're the only people reading each others comments, apparently), let's go with that. I'm curious to know if that title came as is from the source or not, though I suppose nothing short of a trip to the library would clear that up. I will include the current title, but follow WP MoS policy on capitalization. Unless you strongly object, I would prefer to put the source in parenthesis directly underneath the title as (Fischer et al., 1996:192). (The image file should contain a note on the source should other editors find some use for the image outside this article.) I've noticed that the article's footnote format is in a bit of a shambles, and many are formatted in different ways (some are also incomplete), but I would move all of them to this format eventually. If you don't object to my suggestion regarding the specific sources, then we can eliminate the numbered notation from the image altogether. I'll also be using either Verdana of Arial font, as those seem to adjust well when images are resized. If that's it, then I'll start on the image now. --Aryaman (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you read Lawrence's mind and mine, at least. T34CH's effort demonstrate what I meant by "avoid legal-size font for the source!" (no disrespect intended!) The font used for the source can be a bit smaller than that used for the title (why I said "as a subtitle") And I'll defer to ytour experience for the best scalable font. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. I had made that version before I read your comment. My intention was to give us a visual aid to get the ball rolling. Looks like it's working. T34CH (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I just finished when I noticed that I had been working off the current version of this table (one of the downsides of tabbed browsers). Then I compared it with the earliest version Ramdrake diff'ed, and I noticed there are significant differences. Either folks have been tampering with this thing, not realizing that it's from a book, or the original version was not correct and it was corrected later. It would seem to be the former, but how can we be sure? (And would they really compare "Great Britain" with "Irish, Scottish"?) Until we can verify this, I'm hesitant to put up either version. I will upload the version I have now (which reflects the "original" table), but we collectively need to verify this as soon as possible. --Aryaman (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: For some odd reason, the new image isn't showing up on this page; the old version still displays, though I have updated the file. If you want to see it, I guess you'll have to click through until you get to it. Odd indeed. --Aryaman (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you take a look at the image page, you'll notice that, although the new image appears at the top, the file history reports that I uploaded T34CH's file again. Hmm. Maybe it will correct itself? --Aryaman (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can get away with reducing this down to 400px. I have no problems reading it at that size. --Aryaman (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I like the layout fonts and colors. What program did you use? You can see how I handled "Great Britain"ish people in the file history. Like I said 3 days ago, here's another version that has been on the web for at least a year before Futurebird made his version, for comparison. Some one should confirm the accuracy by looking at the actual book. T34CH (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but I would have expected the book title to be included in the table's subtitle. Do you folks think it is possible/appropriate? Otherwise, it looks really good.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it. I use Paint.Net for nearly all my images - which, for freeware, is quite powerful if you understand how to use it. We definitely have to verify this table. I'll be making a trip to the university library today, so I will be able to do this myself. As for the title, I'm fine either way. Changing the image would only take a few mouseclicks, so once people have voiced their opinion, I can do it easily enough. --Aryaman (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks excellent. Of course, when you get your hands on the actual book, the text of the table should match the book's text (barring unforeseen problems). I see that you deleted some entries, such as "East Asian" / "Southeast Asian", because they weren't in the original edit that produced the table. Hopefully the current one matches the book, although "Great Britain" as a race does look odd, as you mentioned. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I compared the table with the original as it appears in the book, making the necessary changes. The table now reflects the data correctly. However, I would like to mention that the authors themselves explicitly point out the weaknesses of this table as: (1) "the information is not complete"; (2) "the tests and procedures varied considerably from study to study" and thus "there is no simple way to compare the size of group differences"; (3) "in some cases, a few studies have yielded more mixed findings than those shown [in the table]" (all from pg. 191 of the same volume). In other words, this table should be taken with a grain of salt, and admittedly sacrifices accuracy for the purpose of making a point. They give us nothing of note in the way of numbers regarding actual differences, and thus the magnitude of difference is left up to the reader's imagination. For example, a close reading of the actual footnotes reveals that the Jew/Arab comparison in the table is based on the fact that, in 1992, 26% of Jewish high school students passed their matriculation exam, as opposed to 15% of Arab students. If we view this kind of reporting impartially, we could easily demonstrate that Fischer et al. are consciously committing exactly the same errors they accuse Herrnstein and Murray of committing. But this kind of impartiality is not condoned on WP; we must simply report the findings. The table image in its current state does this. --Aryaman (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, you're dead right on this one... :-/ --Ramdrake (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. I personally think the WP:NOR rule has serious flaws, but we have to abide by it. (In articles about fictional characters the NOR rule is downright silly, but that's another argument....) If you want to mention the caveats somewhere (maybe in the footnote?) that would be great, or if you omit them that's great too. I'm easy. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Aryaman, are you going to put the new table in the article? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this table actually belong in the article?

Why is this table even in the article? it doesn't touch on the question as to whether intelligence differences between races are environmental or hereditary because the results are equally consistent with the two hypotheses (i) lower average intelligence leads to lower status and (ii) lower status leads to lower average intelligence test scores. Moreover the groups are not, in many cases, what would commonly be called "races". The table seems to more in the nature of propaganda than science, and indeed the source is avowedly partisan. Qemist (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if you are correct that this table "doesn't touch on the question as to whether intelligence differences between races are environmental or hereditary", that doesn't mean the table doesn't belong here. Because this Wikipedia topic is not merely about the "environmental or hereditary" debate -- as you can see from the first paragraph of the article.

Moreover, in my opinion the results of this table are not equally consistent with your hypotheses i and ii. I think that the results of this table are more strongly supportive of ii. That's my opinion of the implications of the table, and I respect that you have a different opinion of the implications of the table. Therefore I favor including the table (but not including my opinion or your opinion of its implications).

Finally, the table purports to include factual information. It is true that the authors of the book it comes from have opinions, but that isn't a problem. A respected academic text can be a valid source for factual data (on Wikipedia, and in the academic world itself) even if the authors of that text have opinions. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find any Wikipedia source that is written by someone without an opinion. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the table does not belong in the article because too much of it concerns groupings that no one describes as a "race." (If this were an article about "ethnic groups and intelligence," then it would be fine. So, I would either delete the table or delete the rows in the table that are not clearly related to race. David.Kane (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it's an all or nothing situation. As I've said before, I think the table belabors a point, but I didn't think there would be any support for removal. Given the concerns raised by Quemist and David Kane, perhaps a reconsideration is in order. --Aryaman (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Two points: first,the very first line of the article says: This article also discusses issues regarding ethnicity and intelligence. And second, we've been belaboring the point here of genetic population differences and between group heritability. Under the circumstances, I think it would be ill-suited to adopt a narrow definition of race in this specific instance to exclude this otherwise informative comparison between ethnic populations.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

VA has pointed out here that the authors who created this table have admitted to distorting certain data in order to fit the point they wished to make, such as listing the French as socially "above" the Flemish, when the opposite would be a more accurate description. Assuming that there's a WP:RS which points out this criticism of the table, if we're going to include the table we should also mention this flaw in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you re-read what VA said, he didn't say that about the French-Flemish divide; he said that about the table in general, and that I'm aware, he included those caveats in his version of the table (with the accompanying text). I don't have an issue with the caveats (they need to be there for honesty's sake), but that's no reason to remove the table: it's still a valid point.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

African IQ "Paradox"

The article currently states:

There is a paradox from IQ studies in Africa that has yet to be resolved. Europeans with an IQ of 70 are considered mentally retarded. However, the Africans found to have an IQ of 70 were perfectly normal with the apparent ability to function normally in their social environment. This has led to questions of the validity of these IQ tests.

It gives the following sources for this claim:

• Sarich (2004). "Race and Behavior". Race. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. ISBN 0813340861.
• Nathan (2004). "A review of Race: the Reality of Human Differences" (PDF).

This is an interesting claim. Though I don't doubt that someone has made this observation, I'm wondering if these sources support this claim. I don't have the book by Sarich & Miele at the moment, but I've perused the piece by Mark Nathan Cohen. (Did I forget to mention? Ignore the poor format of these citations, including the names; the author is "Mark Nathan Cohen", not "Nathan".) First of all, the Cohen article is a book review of Sarich & Miele's Race: The Reality of Human Differences (yes, that's the same "Sarich (2004)"), and not exactly the place to look for well-reasoned argumentation. Here's what Cohen actually says (pg. 261):

These authors themselves suggest that 70 is borderline educable retardation. Colleagues in psychology suggest that the figure approaches that of mental retardation or even developmental disability implying that a very substantial proportion of Africans (almost half) are retarded. They consider the estimate preposterous, because it would produce a barely functional society that would have essentially no capacity for abstract reasoning--hardly a prescription for societies with the rich and vibrant artistic, symbolic and spiritual lives evident in the cultures involved.

Note that the "they" in this train wreck of an argument are Cohen's colleagues, not Sarich & Miele. I think we're better off ignoring Cohen's assessment of the viability and functionality of African society. Let's simply focus on the claim that Africans with an IQ of 70 have been observed to be "perfectly normal" with the ability to "function normally" in their social environment. Given the nature of a phrase such as "perfectly normal", I'd like to see direct quotes from reliable sources on this. As it stands, Cohen is not the place to look for support for this claim.

Also, I hope it is apparent that Cohen's argument is both fallacious and potentially offensive for several reasons, the least of which is that it appears to operate on the assumption that people with an IQ of 70 or less can neither lead artistically and spiritually rewarding lives nor make a positive contribution to society.

As for the Sarich & Miele book, a quick reading of the abstract might give one second thoughts regarding its use to support this claim. The book is a defense of the concept of race, and attempts to demonstrate, among other things, that "racial differences in humans exceed the differences that separate subspecies or even species in such other primates as gorillas and chimpanzees". Something tells me Sarich & Miele are not going to support the claim as it stands above.

Lastly, please note that the 4 statements in the passage quoted above form a logical chain. That is, this information is being mentioned to support the claim: "This has led to questions of the validity of these IQ tests". Are these authors discussing the African IQ as part of their attack on the validity of IQ testing? I don't think so. While I fully accept that there are scholars who doubt the validity of IQ testing, I don't think their doubt is founded - even in part - in the "African IQ Paradox". Do you?

Like I said at the start, I don't necessarily doubt that someone out there has made this claim, and perhaps even done some field research to back it up. Let's either get real research to replace what is there now, or rephrase the statement to something which can be cited to a reliable source. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember that Richard Lynn claimed that the bushmen of the Kalahari had the same intelligence as an eight year old European child in his book Race Differences in Intelligence. Lynn's claim that they were mentally retarded and that the eight year old child could survive as easily in the bush was dismissed in the review by Cambridge Professor of Experimental Psychology N.J. McKintosh mentioned here. Mathsci (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Right. The original passage from Lynn was:

An IQ of 54 represents the mental age of the average European 8-year-old child, and the average European 8-year-old can read, write, and do arithmetic and would have no difficulty in learning and performing the activities of gathering foods and hunting carried out by the San Bushmen.

I'm willing to bet that most if not all 8 year old Kalahari Bushmen children have already mastered much of the day-to-day requirements of living in the Kalahari - which is not exactly the Sahara, if you know what I mean. --Aryaman (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any bushmen in the Sahara, if that's what you mean. What disturbs me about some of the WP articles on the books of Richard Lynn is that they reproduce tables as if they represented reliable data. Reading McKintosh's review (in this case Lynn used data gathered by McKintosh), it seems that these tables are probably not reliable and reproducing them violates WP:UNDUE. Still that's wikipedia for you. Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is how reliable is a study that states that a significant proportion of a population is mentally retarded based on their IQ, when the individuals in question are not mentally retarded by all other indicators. Maybe the study is not reliable enough to warrant a mention. According to IQ and the Wealth of Nations, many countries that have an average IQ below 85 have populations that are significantly "mentally retarded". Wapondaponda (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, it's not for us to debate this here. We have to find this in sources. This detailed book review Black Intellectual Genocide of IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Girma Berhanu from 2007 is particularly scathing. 28 pages long with detailed references to the academic literature, it concludes that the authors show poor scholarship, rendering the book useless scientifically. The reviewer concentrates on the case of Ethiopian Jews. Nevertheless the dubious table has been reproduced in the article, which I think is probably inappropriate (WP:UNDUE). Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, the USCDC reports that the distribution of mental retardation among the races (occurrence per 1000 individuals) is: White (5.7), Black (10), Asian (4.9), Hispanic (7.0). There is also a very interesting passage from Flynn which discusses the fact that, apparently, an IQ of 70 in White children denotes a more severe retardation than the same IQ in Black children:

A few words about the lower end of the IQ scale: schools tend to use IQ tests to diagnose mental retardation, the usual criterion being an IQ below 70. However, as Jensen himself has observed, while middle-class children who score below 70 just seem much more retarded than black lower-class children below that level. In her study of Riverside, California, Jane Mercer developed a test of adaptive behavior to see whether or not there were important differences between social groups classified as mentally retarded. She used an age-graded set of indicators, for example, can set the table at 3, lace his own shoes at 5, run errands with money at 6, and as an adult, can keep score at baseball, work with little or no supervision, read books and newspapers, and so forth. A pass (at this level) meant that one could perform approximately two-thirds of the tasks appropriate to one's age group. On the basis of a tested subsample, Mercer asserts that none of the whites with IQs of less than 70 passed, while 20 of 22 blacks passed. (Flynn, 1980:204)

Apparently, Blacks with a low (<70) IQ can function better than Whites with the same IQ, at least in regards to menial tasking. This, however, is a far cry from saying Africans with an IQ of 70 or less are "perfectly normal with the apparent ability to function normally in their social environment". Thus, the search continues... --Aryaman (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the message of these book reviews is that Lynn's attempt to internationalize the black-white "gap" to Africa and elsewhere instantly raises problems possibly less evident in the USA, namely the failure of Lynn and others to properly take into account factors from anthropology, sociology, nutrition, etc. In a certain sense, even in statistical considerations, psychologists like Lynn seem to be quite out of their depth here. This is what I understand from McKintosh's review; and I think Girma Berhanu also points this out more forcefully in his review, which deserves careful consideration as a "debunking" of precisely the things presented by Lynn and others as "fact". It shows what traps they fall into when trying to use an intelligence test devised for those raised in the West (originally for US army recruits?) outside its original context. The shift from the USA to Africa (or elsewhere) immediately highlights these problems. A general criticism of the whole article is that it is centred on a debate in the USA. It's probably best not to confuse Africans and African-Americans. With his expertise in anthropology, Slrubenstein will correct me if I'm wrong, but this kind of jump would seem to be making a fundamental error with all sorts of preconceptions attached. How is it possible to blur the distinction between Africans and African-Americans? What the sources indicate is that Lynn and others have been accused by reputable academics of applying a flawed scientific methodology in their discussion of race and intelligence outside the USA. Mathsci (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Africans in Africa I don't see the paradox. If Africans generally have low IQs and IQs of 70 or less are common in Africa, then you would expect people low IQs to fit in and function in their society. Being surprised at this "paradox" is like being surprised that people 5ft tall are not considered short in pygmy society. The fact that Americans of African descent with an IQ of 70 are more capable and functional than white Americans with that IQ is consistent with the test under-measuring the intelligence of African-Americans. If that were the case, then it would be unsurprising if the test under-measured the intelligence of african Africans even more. This seems a more parsimonious explanation than hypothesizing some sort of biological functional retardation among people of African descent. Qemist (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we "blur the distinction" between African Americans and Africans. I mentioned the Flynn passage because it discusses racial differences in the perceived severity of mental retardation, not because I wanted to apply this result directly to Sub-Saharan Africans. Regarding the "failures" of "Lynn and others", I think you'll find that Jensen takes nutrition and other such factors seriously. And all psychometricians take potential cultural bias in IQ testing very seriously, which is one reason why Jensen stopped talking about "intelligence" some time ago and instead refers to g. Whether g-loaded tests have been used in the measurement of African populations is certainly an interesting question, but ultimately falls outside the scope of the present discussion, the point of which is to determine whether any reliable sources can be found for the above claim as it appears in the article. --Aryaman (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: In case anyone is curious (I was), it would appear that the internationalized WISC-R test has been used for IQ assessment in African countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe. If you would like to see the results of Black-White comparisons in those populations: Zimbabwe, South Africa. Alternatively, if you're interested in an example of the attempts to overcome social and cultural bias in IQ testing in Africa, this study details the use of the old "ratio IQ" in preference to the more modern "deviance IQ" method, and reports some success. --Aryaman (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Varoon Arya, I think you are departing into original research. At the top of this section you wrote African IQ "Paradox". Apparently this topic was concocted by you, since you haven't provided a specific recent source that discusses this exact topic. The references cited are all rather old and much recent "research" has been discredited. It might be an idea to spend a little time reading the 28 page book review by Berhanu before using this talk page as a forum. Your approach seems quite unscholarly. By not considering the arguments of Berhanu, you are simply repeating the faulty scientific methodology of Lynn. Am I mistaken in thinking that you believe that various African peoples can be labelled as " severely mentally retarded" and are searching for evidence? Is this not the province of anthropology? Do anthropologists use this terminology? What does Laurens van der Post have to say? Mathsci (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Back up a sec there, Mathsci. Please re-read everything I've said. The passage I quote at the top of this section is currently in the article. I didn't write it. My point in discussing it here is to point out that I think the sources cited as supporting this claim are being misused. If reliable sources can be found which support this claim, then we should use them to replace what is there currently. Otherwise, I am all for deleting the whole passage. That's policy, and has nothing to do with me "concocting" anything. Frankly, I'm a bit perplexed as to your response, seeing as everything I've said has been with a view towards improving a very specific part of this article. --Aryaman (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the word "paradox" in that sentence is not justified nor the "scare" phrasing of the sentence. However, I believe that since the two reviews I found mentioned various factors that need to be taken into account when interpreting measurements in Africa, this should be included in the article. I also believe that if Lynn's recently published assertions about race and intelligence in Africa have been contested by academics, this should be recorded in the article. In other words the sentences should be replaced by something more accurate, up-to-date and very carefully written that agrees completely with reliable sources. I am sorry for any confusion. Mathsci (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I added the references to Miele and Nathan one or two years ago. Miele though arguing for the existence of race is also confounded by the "paradox". Whereas Nathan 2004 suggest that it is the testing that is problematic. Whatever the case, there is an inconsistency which I believe has yet to be resolved, and I thought it was worth mentioning since IQ=70 has been frequently mentioned. It is principally in the US where issues of "race" are a major part of the policy debate, whereas it is not a dominant issue in other parts of the world. The French government by its secular ideals doesn't even recognize race and doesn't consider race in demographic surveys. Furthermore explicit IQ testing may even be illegal in some parts of the world. All this makes internationalizing the race/IQ debate, at this stage, still problematic as highlighted by the perplexing discord between African IQ and the lack of mental retardation. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact that race is not such an issue elsewhere or that the French government does not like to record race or that IQ testing may be illegal somewhere (where? I have never heard of such a thing) prevents taking an international perspective. I note that you refer to "the debate". The page we are discussing isn't supposed to be a "debate", it's an encyclopedia article. Qemist (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We are getting way out of hand here. The fact is that the "There is a paradox from IQ studies in Africa..." text is not properly cited. I'm sure with near absolute certainty that credible academic researchers have made this connection, but that work is not what we have before us.

I would support removal of the text. The Squicks (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If one has an amazon account, you can get a preview of Sarich and Miele page 225 where the authors directly discuss this issue. I would describe the book as outright "racialist" possibly "racist" so read at ones own risk. Of course racialists would enjoy such a book. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is a very lousy argument for the inclusion or exclusion of material. The fundamental issue here is that the text that I believe is currently in the article is not properly sourced, and should thus be removed (or a proper source found). The Squicks (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as we apparently agree that this passage is not supported by these sources, I suggest we remove it. Of course, this needs to be done with a view towards improving the section, and it should at least discuss African IQ test results. If studies can be found which specifically discuss Black-White comparisons made in African countries, we should discuss these as well. I linked to two such studies above, and there are very likely more which could and should be mentioned.

As for factors which may reduce the reliability of such results, I think we need to group this criticism together rather than keeping it sprinkled throughout the article. The claim that cross-cultural comparisons of IQ are (inherently or methodically) flawed can be well-sourced and deserves a good presentation. --Aryaman (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sympathetic to Aryaman's claims and suggestions here. if I have misse dor misread something I'd appreciate someone explaining it to me but a little more slowly and detailed so I can follow the objction. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, the "we" that Aryaman refers to does not include me as I believe the statement is supported by the sources. If there is a consensus to remove it because we don't like it, then that is a different matter. Here is an excerpt from Sarich and Miele

Perhaps the most enigmatic and controversial results in the IQ realm pertain to Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants around the world. The most puzzling single finding is the apparent mean IQ of the former of about 70....Consider what an IQ of 70 means in the United States. It was the boundary for what was once called educable mentally retarded (EMR).... Arthur Jensen who worked with EMR in his early days at Berkeley, has pointed out that a measured IQ of 70 has very different implications for American Blacks and Whites. Whites with IQ 70 are obviously substantially handicapped over and above their test scores. It is difficult to imagine their being able to form a social system among themselves....Black kids with an IQ of 70 are another matter entirely. Except for having a low IQ, they are eminently normal, happy, functional and so on, and there is little doubt that they could do just fine with the formation and maintenance of social units as test for functionality. In other words, it would appear to be an apples and oranges situation.

I believe this is quite consistent with the current text. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Sarich & Miele are talking about the Jensen study - to which Flynn referred and then corroborated with the results of the Mercer study (see the quote from Flynn I provided above). The results of both seem to indicate that Blacks with a low (<70) IQ can function "better" than Whites with the same IQ, at least in regards to the kinds of menial tasking described in Mercer's study. As I've said, I think this is an interesting result, and it might very well be worth mentioning in the article. All I ask is that we first consider the implications. It would seem that Sarich & Miele are saying that having a mean IQ of 70 does not pose a serious problem for Africans, both for the reason that (a) African Americans with an IQ of 70 seem to perform better than White Americans with an IQ of 70 (the implicit assumption being that we can apply these results to African populations), and (b) the relative complexity of African society does not require a high mean IQ (though this may be an inference on my part; it's hard to tell with all the ellipsis). Let it be noted that this argumentation operates on the assumption that the African test results are accurate, i.e. that the African mean IQ is 70. If we are willing to let that stand, then I suppose there isn't really a problem with presenting Sarich & Miele's argument for what it's worth. But I think before we do so, a more thorough examination of the literature is necessary. Do most experts accept the 70 mean, and emphasize that this 70 mean in African communities does not necessarily imply the mental retardation that it does in White American communities? Or are they arguing that the tests have been conducted incorrectly, and that if conducted correctly, the African mean should be closer to the White American mean of 100? Or are they arguing that there is no good method for comparing the results of two different cultures where intelligence has different meanings? I don't lean towards any one of those options particularly, but I think the article should reflect which ever is the main line of argumentation in the literature, or possibly all of them if found in reliable sources. --Aryaman (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just to clarify: I think the "apples and oranges" comment is meant to imply that Whites and Blacks are two different races, and that these results confirm this. I haven't read the book, but that would be appear to be the interpretation most consistent with the synopsis. In other words: As the distance between 70 and the African American mean of 85 is far less and thus less significant than the distance between 70 and the White American mean of 100, it should not surprise us that 70 represents a far greater degree of retardation in the White population. I'm not arguing the point for them, and I'm not commenting upon whether I find the argument convincing, but I do believe that this is what the passage Muntuwandi quoted is actually driving at. Either way, I don't think it is saying anything about the reliability of IQ tests other than that they help support the pro-race thesis. That's why I brought up the issue of source misuse in the first place. --Aryaman (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are introducing your own somewhat biased opinion here especially when you state that "the relative complexity of African society does not require a high mean IQ". This is not what Sarich suggests, if one reads the book they in fact make the opposite argument. They are confounded by this paradox and suggest that the issue is not resolved. However, they offer only one side of the story as they are self-admitted racialists. I believe the [review offers another that you have not considered, that these IQ estimates are "preposterous". With regard to your comment about societal complexity and IQ. There is a hypothesis that complex societies select for high mean IQ, which is a somewhat reasonable hypothesis. At the same time, evolutionary psychologists wonder why homo sapiens is an intelligent species, when for the vast majority human evolution, homo lived in relatively simple societies. Homo sapiens has only lived in complex agricultural societies for the last 10,000 years, yet homo sapiens was obviously intelligent before then. IOW, homo sapiens have had more intelligence than required by the environment. Consequently Stephen Jay Gould have argued that intelligence is an "accident of evolution". I digress, but simply wanted to point out that simplistic reasoning for the origins and causes of intelligence are currently insufficient to explain this phenomenon. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop referring to people as racists. It's very unhelpful to this discussion, which was civil, reasonable, and evenhanded in tone before and should be as civil as that in the future. The Squicks (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi referred to "racialists", not "racists". Please look up the difference.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

←If wonder if editors could stop interpreting books for other wikipedians and also be more careful about relative phrases like "mental retardation" and "different race", which I do not believe anthropologists use to describe Africans. (The phrase "IQ score differences" is fine, if measurements have been made.) An assessment of a book like "Sarich, V. & Miele, F. Race: The Reality of Human Differences" on wikipedia should be made through a secondary source - ideally book reviews. There are also plenty of other articles available. I found this scholarly article [1] by Mountain (anthropology) and Risch (genetics) from Stanford University ("Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups", Nature Genetics 36, S48 - S53 (2004)). The terms used in the title of their article and their discussion are very carefully chosen and avoid falling into the traps that I have mentioned. Mountain and Risch write about Sarich and Miele's book

Two recent books have argued strongly for a genetic basis for what have been called 'race differences'. As writer Steve Olson notes, "Many people continue to believe that human groups have fundamental biological differences. They believe that outward variations in skin color, facial features, or body shape reflect more consequential differences of character, temperament, or intelligence." Several authors, including Olson, have made the opposite argument, stating that there is no biological basis or meaning to race differences.

They then give a very detailed discussion. There is also a discussion of the book by Rushton and Jensen here. This article, "Wanted, more race realism, less moralistic fallacy", seems to be a polemic. They freely cite Lynn's statistical evidence without question, despite the criticism of his flawed scientific methods by academics already mentioned. I think there are plenty of other book reviews of Miele and Sarich, eg Journal of Clinical Investigation (Morris W. Foster, J. Clin. Invest. 113(12): 1663-1663 (2004)). Foster writes:

Despite repeated assertions of their superior adherence to rigorous scientific standards, Sarich and Miele have written a book that is full of anecdotes and unsupported claims for genetic determinism and that has far fewer citations of peer-reviewed literature than do most popularizations. Most telling, perhaps, is their reluctance or inability to specify how many races they believe exist and what those might be. One would think that if race were indeed a reality, it would be possible to enumerate the biological divisions implied in the concept. The authors also dwell unnecessarily on the ethnic, political, sexual, and religious identities of their historical opponents in this ongoing debate, whom Sarich and Miele characterize primarily as immigrants, communists or socialists, homosexual or bisexual, and, above all, Jewish. This practice tends to confirm the ongoing reality of racism, if not of race.

This indicates that the book contains flawed scientific methodology. The book is also severely criticized as being "racist" and distorting evidence by the anthropologist M. N. Cohen here in addition to his review here (already cited). There is another review here by S. A. Gardner in MultiCultural Review, v. 13, no. 4 (winter 2004): 83 . The abstract states:

This is a non-rigorous scientific examination of race that largely relies on 40-year-old work. The thesis of the book is that race accounts for significant differences among humans, including intelligence. While medically and culturally race has meaning, in terms of biology it is not generally considered to be a relevant attribute of an organism. To use biological data as these authors do, and to ignore so much biological work that has touched on the issue of human racial differences over the past 40 years, calls into question the conclusions made here. Racists throughout modern history have used science to justify their prejudices. It appears that this is another such instance. The authors' conclusion is that society should be set up to be a straight "meritocracy." But their interpretation of what that would actually mean is strongly hinted at when Sir Francis Galton, one of the founders of eugenics-which spawned decades of institutional racism and genocide in the twentieth century-is referred to as "Charles Darwin's smarter younger cousin," and when a dubious postulate such as "the mean sub-Saharan African IQ is 70," is argued for even though it makes no sense. How could a continent of functionally retarded people survive? They completely ignore the facts that (1) IQ tests measure only limited aspects of intelligence, and (2) societal factors often affect test outcomes. The authors claim that they do not mean to advance racist views, but then they refer repeatedly to works such as The Bell Curve, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, and Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It, each of which has been criticized for doing just that.

And so on. For example the poor scholarship in the book is dismissed again here by C. Knowles in Sociology, Volume 40(1): 189–192 (the reviewer compares one of their assertions directly to a not dissimilar assertion in Mein Kampf). The book is a primary source and any reference to it or its claims must be carefully qualified, like the books of Lynn. I did also find the additional fact that most anthropologists in China freely use the term "race" as explained in "The Status of the Race Concept in Contemporary Biological Anthropology: A Review" (2007) here. Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, some of which I had not yet come across. Thanks to Mathsci for the links. If we are to refrain from interpreting works for other editors, let's not characterize the work of Jensen & Rushton as a "polemic". I think it's fair to say we can expect editors to approach this material with slightly more critical acumen. The work referred to is a defense of the pair's Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (2005) which reiterates and replies to the arguments which critics made in their evaluation of that work. Before commenting upon Jensen & Rushton's use of Lynn (1991), we need to look at both Lynn's work as well as the original 2005 work by Jensen & Rushton. Lynn (1991) is a literature review of 11 other works, and Jensen & Rushton (2005) corroborates the Lynn (1991) findings through comparison with the summary provided by Lynn & Vanhanen (2002) of the findings of Glewwe and Jacoby (1992) in Ghana, Sternberg et al. (2001) in Kenya, Zindi (1994) in Zimbabwe, and Owen (1992) as well as Skuy, Schutte, Fridjhon, and O’Carroll (2001) in South Africa. They then bring forward the results of more recent research in Africa, such as that of Sternberg in Tanzania (2002; 2005). Now, we can certainly roll out the long list of critics who reviewed the Lynn & Vanhanen (2002) book, but let's not overlook that fact that the bulk of that criticism is directed at Lynn & Vanhanen's use of the data (e.g. their method of projecting IQ over time and their methods of correlating IQ with GDP) and not at their reporting of the results of the above-mentioned studies. (If there is criticism to that effect, I have not seen or heard of it.) Most of the reviews I have seen either accept this data as reported, or point out supposed flaws in subsequent calculations. Note also that the contested results (such as those regarding Ethiopia) have not been repeated in Jensen & Rushton (2005).

While the quotes provided by Mathsci are useful in their own right, I hope it's clear that they boil down to the academic version of WP:JDLI. The others, which "indicate that the book contains flawed scientific methodology" are setting up straw men, as no proponent of the concept of race in science is suggesting that races are isolated biological entities. I hope we won't see editors attempt to obscure the question of the value of sources behind some vacuous interpretation of "policy". --Aryaman (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the title of the short comment by Rushton and Jensen reveals it as a polemic. The long article mentioned below severely criticizes the methodology and data of Lynn which is what the book of Sarich & Miele and many other texts rely upon. Please read it as it reveals the selective way Lynn discards data that he finds unhelpful. The same criticism has been mentioned by McKintosh. Anything that uses Lynn's data is probably unreliable: that much seems to be clear. The review below is fairly definitive for 2009. We don't need wikipedia editors to put there own spin on a wide set of data, which they are not in a position to evaluate. Fortunately that evaluation has already been done in the article cited below. In particular, the authors say that an examination of the data gives an average of 82 rather than 70, although they say testing is too incomplete at present. Please read the article, because it is probably one of the most relevant recent articles for these sub-Saharan issues. Indeed it claims to review all previously published data. Mathsci (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who cites Lynn inherits all the criticism directed at him? Interesting. Has Lynn's rejoinder to the Wicherts et al. report been published yet? And what critical reviews are there? (Google Scholar gives 2 citations.) My first search produced only Templer (2009). In extra-journal chatter, Lynn criticizes the Wicherts report in regards to its methodology. A working paper by Jensen and Rushton (2009) makes a partial response to Wicherts. Much of the same analysis can be found in Jensen & Rushton (2005). As long as these results are compared side by side, I don't see a problem. I also think differentiation similar to that done by Jensen & Rushton on pp 241-245 of the 2005 article could be more useful than giving one mean score in the article. Comments? --Aryaman (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Flawed scientific methodology and discredited manipulation of statistics are exactly that. Question marks and controversy hang over all that Rushton, Lynn and Jensen have claimed. Any citation must obviously be immediately qualified by the subsequent criticism in the academic literature. I have quoted Templer below (what are his academic credentials?) for making a number of assertions that would normally raise eyebrows. There are assertions that crime rate (rape. murder, etc) can be predicted by national IQs and that Blacks are more prone to HIV/AIDS than Whites. Varoon Arya appears to be proposing to use, without qualification, the questionable data of a small group of controversial academics. Again Varoon Arya seems to be using this talk page as a forum and is confusing wikipedia policies about primary sources, particularly when there are issues of controversy and shoddy scholarship. In response to Varoon Arya's first question, I would indeed say that any wikipedian editor intent on citing a severely criticized source without any qualification is not making useful edits and is actually being disruptive (POV-pushing). Usually on wikipedia this kind of disruption is remedied by page or topic bans. As the Amsterdam survey explains, not enough measurements have been carried out in Africa at the moment: there have been fewer studies than countries. Perhaps Varoon Arya has been trying to say this. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I suggesting using "a severely criticized source without any qualification"? Hardly. In fact, I wasn't even arguing that Lynn's data should be included at all. If you recall, you are the one who brought Lynn up in the first place. If you want to question the relevance and/or acceptance of Lynn's findings, then look at the Wicherts report:

This [i.e. Lynn's] estimate features prominently in several evolutionary theories of intelligence (Kanazawa, 2004; Lynn, 2006; Rushton, 2000). Moreover, Lynn and Vanhanen's (2002, 2006) estimates of national IQ have featured in over twenty scientific studies (Barber, 2005; Dickerson, 2006; Gelade, 2008a,b; Jones & Schneider, 2006; Kanazawa, 2006, 2008; Kirkcaldy, Furnham, & Siefen, 2004; Lynn, Harvey, & Nyborg, 2009; Meisenberg, 2004; Morse, 2006; Ram, 2007; Rindermann, 2006, 2007, 2008a,b; Rindermann & Meisenberg, in press; Rushton & Templer, in press; Shatz, 2008; Templer, 2008; Templer & Arikawa, 2006a,b; Voracek, 2004; Weede & Kampf, 2002; Whetzel & McDaniel, 2006; Woodley, 2009).

This "questionable" data apparently finds very wide circulation. I have never said that this should be presented without qualification, and I have never suggested that the findings of the Wicherts report not be included. But I have objected to your attempts to blacklist Lynn's work, as it is unjustified. If that is "disruptive" behavior, then so be it. --Aryaman (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that other authors quote Lynn does not mean the content of Lynn's book has been accepted by the scientific community. Prof McKintosh's criticism mentions for example that Lynn misuses data that McKintosh gathered himself; Lynn apparently did not gather any data himself. Numerous academics have criticized Lynn's shoddy methods and manipulation of statistics. I don't have any interest in Race and crime in the United States. However, I note that Donald Templer claims to have proved that countries with lower average intelligence have more crime, notably rape and murder (this article is cited above). Given that piece of scholarship, I fully expect contributors to this page to produce new articles on Race, intelligence and crime. I don't understand why Varoon Arya is using a citation count to establish the legitimacy of a book. That is not how wikipedia works. What might be permitted in the article is to mention the assertions of Lynn's book, then immediately list the alternative theories, shortcomings and lack of comprehensive sets of data as well as the criticisms of his methodology and scholarship from peer-reviewed journals. Using a citation count is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to indulge in refuting your straw man arguments anymore, Mathsci. Nor will I dignify your veiled personal attacks with a response. Instead, I'm going to request that you remain on-topic. If you can't, then please keep your comments to yourself. Your participation here up to this point has been anything but constructive.

Re: the actual issue: The passage quoted at the beginning of this section is not properly sourced. I do not find Muntuwandi's argument - the only one provided in defense - convincing in the least. Until it can be sourced, I'd like to remove it. Constructive suggestions for a replacement (e.g. something covering IQ in Africa) are certainly welcome. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the passage is in fact supported. The only point where I tend to agree is that the question is probably not on the validity of the tests in question. Therefore, I would suggest:

There is a paradox from IQ studies in Africa that has yet to be resolved. Europeans with an IQ of 70 are considered mentally retarded. However, the Africans found to have an IQ of 70 were perfectly normal with the apparent ability to function normally in their social environment. This has led to question the meaning of those results in terms of the existing African society.

I'm not married to those exact words of course, but I think something along those lines is properly supported between Varoon's and Mathsci's references.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That would take us right back to the beginning. Is there a "paradox"? According to whom? Have Africans with an IQ of 70 been found to be "perfectly normal" and "functioning normally" in their social environment? By whom? When? And what on earth did they use to objectively determine something as inherently ambiguious as "perfectly normal"? The only thing I've seen "sourced" here is the fact that critics of an African mean of 70 greet such a claim with incredulity.

I support the introduction of sourced statements regarding the African mean, and I think something which combines the Jensen & Rusthon findings with the Wicherts findings would be appropriate (e.g. a mean somewhere between 70 and 80, depending upon which segement of the population is being considered, with African college students topping out somewhere in the 80s or low 90s). We might also want to mention the effects of colonialism and apartheid, and that studies conducted after independence in several African countries typically do not evidence any change in the mean IQ (e.g. the scores of children born after the end of White rule do not differ significantly from those born during White rule). Judging from the literature, I think the strongest argument against the African mean is that leveled against any cross-cultural IQ comparisons. --Aryaman (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to answer your question: the "paradox" comes from the fact that Africans (which according to some IQ tests have a mean IQ of 70) have been manifestly able to build civilizations (including culture, a complex social structure, etc.) with a group average IQ that would be the equivalent of barely educable in White society. So, how come in Black society this "barely educable" level allows for the development of a complex society? This is the reason for their incredultiy, and I think it is well-stated in the references as they are.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing to the proposed statement which has been cited so far (other than the contested work of Sarich & Miele and the weird logic of Cohen) is Gardner (2004), where he writes: "How could a continent of functionally retarded people survive?" You don't see a problem with using this rhetorical question to source the statement "Africans found to have an IQ of 70 were perfectly normal with the apparent ability to function normally in their social environment"? If not, please review: WP:Sources. --Aryaman (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that this, which you quoted yourself, is closer to what I meant: These authors themselves suggest that 70 is borderline educable retardation. Colleagues in psychology suggest that the figure approaches that of mental retardation or even developmental disability implying that a very substantial proportion of Africans (almost half) are retarded. They consider the estimate preposterous, because it would produce a barely functional society that would have essentially no capacity for abstract reasoning--hardly a prescription for societies with the rich and vibrant artistic, symbolic and spiritual lives evident in the cultures involved.' (emphasis mine)

I'd say this would fully support my proposition.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned the problems with Cohen before. Do you really want the article to read: "According to some psychology colleagues of Mark Cohen, people with an IQ of 70 or less are incapable of leading artistic and spiritually meaningful lives, and thus estimates of an African IQ of 70 are preposterous."? Because that's what his statement boils down to. I'd prefer to avoid getting into a discussion as to whether or not African countries with very low mean IQs should be considered "functional" by international standards, as I don't think it's exactly fair to pit a country such as Equatorial Guinea (59) against the United States (98) because doing so almost necessitates we ignore the enormous differences in their histories. At the same time, however, that has to be pointed out, because this is the kind of thing you are proposing we introduce into the article. Are you sure this is what you want to do? --Aryaman (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you mean to say that African civilizations are "dysfunctional" compared to Western civilization, that is your argument. Another argument, straight from the Cohen review, would support the previous formulation, rather than us getting into an argument about whether African are "truly" civilized: Either environments, not genes, have changed remarkably (they have, of course) or IQ tests, as often used, aren’t competent to measure of innate intelligence. (They aren’t.) Cohen directly challenges the competence (read validity) of IQ tests to measure African intellect. So, I suggest we go back to the previous formulation and just leave the Cohen ref in, as it fully supports the statement.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you absolutely must use Cohen, then the best we could queeze out of his book review would be:

According to Mark Cohen, the frequently reported African mean IQ of 70 is "preposterous". Using Western standards, this would mean that African countries evidencing such a low IQ would be largely disfunctional. Given that individuals in these countries lead vibrant artistic and religious lives, this is, according to Cohen, clearly not the case. Thus, he concludes, the IQ test results from Africa do not reflect actual intelligence levels.

If you want to add that and reference it to Cohen, I won't object. If you want it to say anything else, then please find better sources. --Aryaman (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm fine with that wording.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans

Here is the abstract of the above 20 page article by Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan and Han L.J. van der Maas published in 2009 in Intelligence.

On the basis of several reviews of the literature, Lynn [Lynn, R., (2006). Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.] and Lynn and Vanhanen [Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T., (2006). IQ and global inequality. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.] concluded that the average IQ of the Black population of sub-Saharan Africa lies below 70. In this paper, the authors systematically review published empirical data on the performance of Africans on the following IQ tests: Draw-A-Man (DAM) test, Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), the Wechsler scales (WAIS & WISC), and several other IQ tests (but not the Raven's tests). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are explicitly discussed. Results show that average IQ of Africans on these tests is approximately 82 when compared to UK norms. We provide estimates of the average IQ per country and estimates on the basis of alternative inclusion criteria. Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82. It is suggested that this estimate should be considered in light of the Flynn Effect. It is concluded that more psychometric studies are needed to address the issue of measurement bias of western IQ tests for Africans.

Here is the article [2]. I have also placed a copy here temporarily. Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

here's Lynn and Meisenberg's response to Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas:

Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas (2009) contend that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is about 80. A critical evaluation of the studies presented by WDM shows that many of these are based on unrepresentative elite samples. We show that studies of 29 acceptably representative samples on tests other than the Progressive Matrices give a sub-Saharan Africa IQ of 69; studies of the most satisfactory representative samples on the Standard Progressive Matrices give an IQ of 66; studies of 23 acceptably representative samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices give an IQ of 71. The international studies of mathematics, science, and reading give a sub-Saharan African IQ of 66. The four data sets can be averaged to give an IQ of 68 as the best reading of the IQ in sub-Saharan Africa.

[3] --DJ (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He also has written this article [4]. Once his scientific methodology has been exposed as flawed and his use of statistics criticized by respected academics, Lynn's discredited assertions cannot be used without considerable qualification. In other words a lot of controversy and question marks hang over his academic output. The study by the scientists from Amsterdam was peer-reviewed. This was probably not the case for Lynn's rebuttal. Elsewhere Donald Templer from Alliant International University, Fresno writes in Lynn's defense, "The Big Picture is that Blacks average a lower IQ and all that goes with it and are prone to HIV/AIDS." [5] Interesting to read that whites in the USA or Africa are genetically less prone to HIV/AIDS than blacks. Templer also writes, "When I tested the theory I found an r–K super-factor that accounted for 75% of the variance across 129 national differences in IQ, life expectancy, birth rate, infant mortality, HIV/AIDS, skin color, and GDP (median r = .68; Templer, 2008). Rushton and Templer (2009) extended these results and found 113 national IQs predicted violent crimes such as murder, rape, and serious assault." Even more interesting. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the Lynn article published in Intelligence (journal)? And, though this is going off-topic somewhat: Could you provide more specific information regarding Rushton & Templer's findings on IQ and/or r/K over on the talk page at Race and crime in the United States? Though you sound incredulous, IQ theory and r/K theory are heavily discussed theories of causation in that sub-field, and the article could perhaps benefit from the inclusion of this material.

As I said, as long as we discuss the findings of the Wicherts report along side the original Jensen & Rushton 2005 review, I don't see a problem. And, of course, Lynn's rebuttal needs to be taken into consideration, especially given the fact that Wicherts admits to using a potentially troubling method in handling the data. --Aryaman (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The r/K scale, as commented by its author, has been decried as not being applicable to a single species, let alone to human "races". Rushton hasd been heavily criticized for it [6][7]. The fact that Rushton has kept rehashing the same drivel in several articles, however, does not make the concept of r-K selection any more "heavily discussed". It's just a lot of noise coming from basically just one person.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look through some of the books in the bibliography of the Race and Crime article, you'll see that within the field of criminology, Rushton's r/K theory receives a large amount of coverage from other authors about this topic. Varoon Arya can provide more information on this, since he's the main person who researched that article, but two major criminology works I'm aware of that cover Rushton's theory are The Encyclopedia of Race and Crime (2009), and Race and Crime (2005), both by Gabbidon and Greene. As pointed out on the Race and crime talk page, universities which offer courses on race and crime use the latter book as required reading more often than any other book, so it is the single most useful available standard by which to judge the degree to which various theories about this topic are considered. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Try not to get distracted by causal hypotheses when writing about the nature of test score differences. The causes are mostly unknown (Neisser et al 1996), but a great deal is known or at least well supported with regard to the properties of test score differences. --DJ (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all good material. You ought to add it to the article. David.Kane (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove All Tags

I believe that this article suffers from WP:OVERTAGGING, potentially even WP:TAGBOMB. I tried to remove one tag last month and a different one today. My changes were reverted. It is not clear to me that, no matter how excellent the article became, it would ever be possible to remove these tags. So, I propose removing all tags now and then starting afresh. If, after discussion, there was consensus to add these tags (or others) back to the article, that would be fine. What do other editors think? David.Kane (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree to the overtagging, but the article still isn't balanced. There needs to be a section added on the criticism of the 100% environment thesis in all of its forms. Jensen (2002), for example, goes through 10 of the most popular environmental theories and debunks them all, yet none of this criticism appears in the article. We could also go through the criticism of Rushton, Gottfriedson, etc. Until that is done, I think the unbalanced tag should remain. However, I think the worldwide tag and the expert tag are overkill, and would not object to their removal. --Aryaman (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the tag removal. The problems need to be addressed before the tags are removed. We've barely begun the work. Give it some time.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I think that the problems have been addressed. Second, I see no evidence that any amount of improvement would satisfy Ramdrake. See our discussion about the Worldwide tag. Third, with regard to the balance tag, I believe (corrections welcome) that Aryaman (talk) thinks the balance is off in one direction (needs more Jensen) while Ramdrake thinks it is off in the other direction. There is no way to make you both happy! David.Kane (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then, submit the existence of the tags to an RfC. We can go by community input if we're divided between us.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Before going to the WP:RFC, I want to solicit opinions from other editors on this page. "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first." If most feel that all the tags are warranted, then there is no need for an RfC. I like to think that, if most editors agree with me, an RfC would be unnecessary as well . . . David.Kane (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

“I believe (corrections welcome) that Aryaman thinks the balance is off in one direction (needs more Jensen) while Ramdrake thinks it is off in the other direction. There is no way to make you both happy!”

I think we shouldn’t look at this in terms of balancing different authors so much as balancing different viewpoints. NPOV requires that we include criticisms of each of these theories that have been published in reliable sources, but if any theory has multiple well-known supporters who hold similar viewpoints, we don’t need to cite every proponent of this theory an equal amount. In this case, since Eysenck’s death Jensen is probably the most prominent adherent of the hereditarian view, so we shouldn’t consider it a problem if most of the arguments against the environmental view are cited to him rather than to this theory’s other supporters.

I agree with VA that the article needs to include some of the criticism of the 100%-environment theory. If Jensen’s paper is the best available criticism of this theory, then it should be used for this. I also agree with David.Kane that the "worldwide" tag is no longer necessary, and I think this was established by the earlier discussion that he linked to. I'm not sure either way about the expert tag, though, since I don't recall that having been discussed here recently. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are two opposed viewpoints here, much like David Kane: those who think the balance is off in one direction, and those who think it is off in the other direction. This is why I would oppose devoting any more space to the pro-hereditarian view, or to the critic of the environmental view (which is already criticized in the article, BTW). I just don't see that our two positions can be reconciled lest we request wider, outside input from the community. This in all likelihood would break the stalemate one way or the other.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the actual content of the article, you’ll see that although it devotes a large amount of space to the hereditarian view, almost all of that space is taken up by either background information about this theory or criticism of it. This is particularly ironic considering the section is titled “evidence for genetic factors”, and almost none of the evidence cited by proponents of the hereditarian view is actually described there. I don’t think the hereditarian view needs any more space per se, but the aspects of the article pertaining to this theory need to be rewritten in order to summarize the arguments that are made in favor of this view. If the article doesn’t include this anywhere (as it currently doesn’t), then it simply isn’t doing its job. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rageh Omaar documentary film

There was a documentary presented by journalist Rageh Omaar on Channel 4 in the UK recently on this topic, called Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo.[8] This article in The Times gives a summary of it:[9]. The conclusion was that using IQ results of 'races' to claim a real difference in intelligence between 'races' was simplistic. IQ doesn't measure 'intelligence'; it measures certain cognitive tasks that are valued and taught in modern industrialised and literate societies. 'Races' may not reflect biological reality. Culture, education and environment are so important in their effect on IQ scores that those like Richard Lynn who fail to take them into account are making flawed analyses. There was also mention of a finding that there was no correlation between IQ and levels of white ancestry among Africa-Americans. Fences&Windows 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the editors here are agreed that the structure of this article should be based on the manner in which this topic is covered in the academic literature, not how it’s covered in the popular media (such as newspapers, magazines, or TV documentaries). This is a good policy for Wikipedia articles in general, but it’s particularly important for this one, because studies such as Snyderman and Rothman have concluded that the popular media tends to misrepresent the views of scientists about this topic.

Since he’s a journalist rather than a scientist, I don’t think Rageh Omaar can be considered an authority about this topic. His documentary might be useful as a source of information about the views of scientists whom he interviews, but I don’t think its conclusions per se are reliable enough to be used in the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They're good points though, and they reflect the academic consensus. IQ =/= intelligence. Culture, environment and education matter. Race is more a social construct than a biological reality. Those like Lynn who look at differences in IQ between races and conclude that there is a genetic difference in intelligence between ethnic groups are making an oversimplistic analysis. Fences&Windows 22:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If they’re good points, then they’ll be discussed in the academic literature. In this case they are, so there’s no need to cite them to a documentary.

This report in the journal Intelligence, with the signatures of 52 specialists in the relevant fields, addresses the question of what IQ measures. Although it may not be literally synonymous with intelligence, it clearly measures something meaningful. The report states

IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

This study also addresses the question of whether race is socially or biologically based. It compared people’s self-identified “race” to their genetic biogeographical ancestry, and found a 99.86% correlation between the two. So while race can be considered a “social construct”, it correlates so strongly with genetic clusters that any genetic difference between these clusters will manifest itself as a difference between “races” also. This topic is more appropriate to cover in Wikipedia articles such as Race and genetics, though.

If the documentary claims that IQ does not measure anything meaningful, or that race has no correlation to anything in biology, then it is not accurately representing the consensus of scientists who study these topics. This would be an example of the type of thing that the Snyderman and Rothman study discussed, and is one of the reasons why it’s important for Wikipedia articles to be based on the academic literature rather than popular media. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Gottfredson paper represents only the opinions of its 52 signatories. If you want something representative, please at least pick the APA report's conclusions. Also, the Tang paper does not address the question of whether race is socially or biologically based: it merely finds a strong correlation between self-identified race and one specific clustering scheme on one set of populations. We've been belaboring in these pages that genetic variation increases clinally by distance and does not really correspond to discrete races. Please again, do not misconstrue the current scientific consensus based on your reading of a few articles.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you need bring up irrelevant issues here? I wasn’t claiming that my comment describes the entirety of research on these topics. The only relevant question is whether the academic literature addresses the topics that Fences & Windows brought up, and my post demonstrates that it does, so there’s no need to cite a documentary for it. That’s the only thing being discussed here. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the issue is relevant. You are misrepresenting the academic consensus: 1)IQ is a good social life outcome predictor, but only a minority say that it accurately measures intelligence. 2)genetic variation correlates with geographic distance. The actual correlation with the classical "races" is coincidental and also due to geographic separation, and breaks down in several places (i.e.: the Australian Blacks vs the African Blacks, to name the most obvious example).--Ramdrake (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Captain Occam frequently brings up the Wall Street Journal advertisement. I do not object to that, but i do object to the claim that whatever other people are talking about, the discussion has to come back to this ad. First point: one issue relevant to this article is popular perceptions, and a major TV documentary is relevant not as an authoritative source on what scientists think, but as a source concerning popular perception. Second, when we do want authoritative sources for what scientists think, statements by professional organizations like the AAA or APA, as well as articles in peer reviwed journals (esp. in Annual Reviws) certainly count more than a TV documentary - but they also count for more than an advertisement taken out by a collection of conservative scientists. The ad first appeared in the Wall Street Journan and was not peer-reviewed and certainly has no more standing than any letter to the editor or op-ed any scientist writes "ex cathedra." I think it is disturbing than an opinion piece first presented as a paid advertisement is now presented as some kind of authoritative scholarly document. That gets us nowhere, and certainly far from what this secton is about, which is the status of a recent TV documentary. So to stick to the point, I'd say we can mention it in the context of a section on how the press reports scientific debates, or a section on popular perceptions. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you'll notice that I cited it to the psychology journal Intelligence rather than to the Wall Street Journal. This was an article in a peer-reviewed journal, even though it didn't start out that way. The reason why articles in peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources available is because peer review is the most rigorous fact-checking process that exists in the academic community. The "Mainstream Science" statement has passed peer review for this journal, which is the same criterion used to judge accuracy for everything else published in it. Since it has met these criteria, where it was published originally no longer matters.

In any case, I agree that the TV documentary can be mentioned in a discussion about popular perceptions of this topic, as long as it's made clear that this documentary does not necessarily represent the views of scientists. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If describing an article cosigned by 52 university professors as having some academic weight behind it is "disturbing" to anyone present, I suggest they procure a crash helmet, because Wikipedia will "disturb" the socks right off your feet. To the point:

I think the most we can get from this is perhaps a short sub-section on recent media coverage of the issue, e.g. mentioning that "race and intelligence" was the subject of a documentary. (Though, it might also be worth mentioning that this documentary was aired as part of a series which also included titles such as Is It Better To Be Mixed Race?, Bleach, Nip, Tuck: The White Beauty Myth, and The Event: How Racist Are You?. I wonder if that helped goose their season ratings. :) --Aryaman (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add content from an earlier version

This is an idea that I discussed with several users recently, but I know I need to propose it here before going about it.

In its current state, the article has several issues, one of which I mentioned here recently: that despite the amount of background information it provides about the hereditarian hypothesis, it provides almost no information about what arguments are presented in favor of this viewpoint. Considering that the strengths and weaknesses of these arguments are one of the central points of the debate on this topic, the fact that the article does not include this information is a significant problem, and should be fixed. There are also a few other important pieces of information it leaves out, which aren’t specifically related to arguments in favor or one explanation or another. Editors have been trying to fix these problems one at a time for the past month, and have made very little progress.

My original proposal for a way around this problem was to revert this article to the state that it had in December of 2006, but upon further consideration, I think that’s probably overkill. Not all parts of the article in its current state are problematic and need to be replaced. What I would like to do, however, is to incorporate certain information from the earlier version of the article into its current version.

There are a few reasons why I think some of the content from December of 2006 would be preferable over the current content:

1. December of 2006 was before this article had a significant problem with its content being affected by POV-pushing. Although there appear to have been individual editors involved in it who wished to push a POV, there were enough other editors involved in it that the overall quality of the article didn’t suffer as a result.
2. Possibly for that reason, this appears to have been the most stable version of the article that existed at any point in its history. Its overall structure was supported for at least six months by a consensus which was considerably larger than the number of editors who are currently involved in it.
3. The earlier version of the article includes most of the information that’s missing from its current version, and which need to be reincorporated into it.

Here are the most important changes I’d like to make:

1. The current intro section needs to be revised. T34CH changed it along with all of his other edits that he made within a period of 24 hours, despite the fact that this change went against the consensus that had been established for this section only around a week earlier. Because of how many changes he made at once, this particular change was never discussed here. The intro section of the 2006 version was better than the current one, although in this case it might be sufficient to change this part of the article to what it was before T34CH’s edits.
2. I would like to include the 2006 version’s discussion of the meaning of race. It seems like a strange omission for an article on race and intelligence to not include an explanation of the meaning of one of the two concepts in its title.
3. The few paragraphs on brain size and reaction time ought to be included, since those topics are also an important element of the debate on this topic which the article does not currently mention.
4. As stated earlier, I would like to add the 2006 version’s explanation of arguments presented in favor of genetic factors. The current section titled “evidence for genetic factors” does not actually include this evidence, and it should.
5. I’d like to add back the “significance of group IQ differences”. Regardless of whether the hereditarian or environmental view is correct, the functional significance of the IQ difference is one of the most important aspects of this topic, and it seems inappropriate for an article about the topic to not discuss it.

The idea of reverting this article to its state in December of 2006 was first suggested by Aprock. He appears to no longer be involved in the article, but this idea was also supported by Varoon Arya, David.Kane and DistributiveJustice, all of whom still are. I’m hoping that these users will also approve of my more moderate suggestion to add back information from the earlier version of the article, rather than to revert the whole thing. However, they (and others) are welcome to suggest ways that my proposal could be changed, in terms of making either more or fewer changes than I’ve suggested here. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose: The version which existed in December 2006 was one where the article was basically one large essay trying to make all the points that Rushton makes in the hereditarian hypothesis: about the classical races being biologically meaningful (refuted) about brain size having a correlation with intelligence (only moderately, but then the evidence about Blacks having smaller brains is flimsy and easily refuted -- see Lieberman 2001), etc. The article ended up being one large OR piece. That's why it's no longer the same. While I'll admit it's still not in an ideal condition (there's a lot of work still to be done), going back is not the way to proceed. The issues with the current article have been enumerated more than once by now, and possible solutions proposed. It's just for us to agree upon those solutions and enact them.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the earlier version of the article devotes around twice as much space to evidence for environmental explanations as it does to evidence for genetic ones, I find it rather strange that you view it as “basically one large essay trying to make all the points that Rushton makes in the hereditarian hypothesis.” But in any case, you seem to be making it clear that you’re not to be reasoned with about this, although other editors who agree with my suggestion can try doing so if they want.

Thus far, a total of five editors (myself included) have expressed approval for my suggestion. As I stated earlier, one of them (Aprock) is no longer involved in the article. However, if the opinions expressed here end up being four to one against you, I think you’ll need to accept the fact that consensus goes against your viewpoint about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

However, in this case, I would strongly suggest an RfC.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Filing an RFC is never appropriate before the issue in question has been discussed by the editors involved in an article on its talk page. In fact, when Jagz was editing this article you criticized him for doing this exact thing. If VA, David.Kane and DJ all express agreement with this idea and you're the only editor who expresses disagreement, then an RFC isn't appropriate because four out of five editors is definitely as a consensus. We can have an RFC if building a consensus on the talk page proves to not be possible. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No. If I still disagree, I am free to pursue the normal avenues of WP:DR (dispute resolution), and that does include the possibility of an RfC. I criticized Jagz for bringing up several RfCs in a row because he was losing them one at a time. However, if I'm still the only one protesting, it may be a strong sign that even at RfC, my opinion will be in the minority. However, I doubt that will be the case.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree: I think that the changes suggested by Captain Occam would make the article better, so I am in favor. A second best choice would be to just revert the whole article to the December 2006 state. That versions seems much better (to me) than the current version. Given the conflict between Captain Occam and Ramdrake, I would recommend an up-or-down survey on the option of just reverting to the December 2006 article. (This avoids any conflict over what aspects of the 2006 version or most important.) David.Kane (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Tentative) Support: I think the version linked to by Occam is far superior to what we have now in terms of content, balance and general encyclopedicity. My only criticism of Occam's suggestion is that I do not think it goes far enough. I think it would be better to approach this the other way around, i.e. use that version of the article as our starting point and integrate any pertinent information from the current article into that older version. If this is not a possible course of action due the current editing climate, I would suggest that Occam take the older version into his Sandbox and invite editors to improve it there. Once the Sandbox version has been sufficiently updated, then we can go the RfC route, if necessary. However, if other editors think we can make more progress with Occam's proposal as it stands, I'm certainly in favor. --Aryaman (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the 2006 version is so superior that there is no need to wait for Occam, or anyone else, to go through the trouble of trying to improve it in their Sandbox prior to the move. Better to get it in quickly. I certainly would not recommend that anyone spend a bunch of time trying to improve it first. After all, it is clear that almost no conceivable improvements could be made to that version which would lead some editors to vote for it over the current version. David.Kane (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Some are disturbed by dissatisfied with the very existence of an article titled "Race and intelligence". --Aryaman (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. I’d initially thought that watering down my original proposal (that is, proposing to incorporate elements from the 2006 version rather than to revert the whole article) would be necessary in order to get support for this suggestion, but it looks like consensus may end up going against this change to my proposal. I’ll be fine with either reverting the whole article or just incorporating parts from it, depending on which idea receives more support. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start a sandbox version, and don't restore version from 3 years ago. This really sounds like editors taking sides and forming teams to push through edits. Work together with all editors, not just those who agree with your point of view. I've steered clear of this article due to the constant disagreements, but I can't just watch from the sidelines as collaborative editing goes by the wayside. By all means take ideas from earlier versions, but discuss those that might prove controversial first. Fences&Windows 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I think that just taking content from the earlier version (rather than reverting the whole article) is the most reasonable way Ramdrake’s concerns can be taken into consideration, even if Ramdrake himself will never approve of any content from an earlier version being used. Ramdrake claimed that the earlier version is unbalanced. I don’t think it is, but even assuming he’s right about this, it should be possible to use content from that version of the article without affecting the article’s overall balance.

For example, the earlier version’s description of genetic explanations for the IQ difference is actually shorter than the current version’s, although it’s also better-written and more informative. So we don’t have to worry about it violating WP:UNDUE if we were to replace some of the current content of this section with content from the earlier version. WP:UNDUE requires that we not give minority viewpoints excessive space; not that our explanations of them need to be uninformative. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, the "teams" were formed long before I, Occam or David Kane became involved in this article. I've watched such groups of editors grind lone editors into dust on this article before, and seen them push through some ridiculously POV edits at the same time. I'm all for collegiality and cooperation, but that allowing this behavior to go unchecked has had detrimental effects on the article is evidenced by the drastic difference in quality between the 2006 version and what we have today. If there were such a thing as a "neutral" or "uninvolved arbitrator", I would be willing to submit to a supervised revision process. But given the nature of the issue, I don't see how that's possible.

There are basically 4 POVs involved in this issue:

1. Between-group differences are 100% genetic.
2. Between-group differences are 100% environmental.
3. Between-group differences are the result of both genetic and environmental factors.
4. There is not yet enough evidence to reach a conclusion.

Everyone agrees that the supporters of #1 are a fringe minority. Everyone also acknowledges that #4 makes up a sizable portion of the academic community. The struggle is between #2 and #3. According to the Snyderman and Rothman study, the majority of experts hold #3. This position was also left open as a possibility in the public statement Mainstream Science on Intelligence, signed by 52 university professors. The APA report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns tells us that there is no empirical evidence supporting #3, and that many of the environmental factors proposed by the advocates of #2 have been disproved. Thus, while making a sharp and not uncontroversial statement against #3, it tends more towards #4. There are no other sources that we are willing to agree upon as representing consensus, as all of them published after the APA report are highly opinionated, and put more effort into arguing against a position than providing evidence for a position.

In my experience, the conflict in editing this article stems from the fact that some editors want to present #2 as the only credible academic view, and portray #3 as "fringe" science with a minority of followers who have a dubious history and are either racists or simpletons. Any attempt to present #3 as a viable theory are consistently met with heavy criticism if not outright disdain by the proponents of #2. This is often accompanied by claims of "racism", "racialism", or some such label meant to either scare off the editor or make other editors hesitant in supporting anyone attempting to inject neutrality in the presentation, regardless of whether they support #3 or #4. In this situation, "discussion" yields very little in the way of positive results, and even non-controversial points become launching pads for personal attacks. It's highly frustrating, and the article is suffering heavily under the present circumstances.

If someone uninvolved can propose a constructive way forward, I'm all ears. --Aryaman (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Arya, what is your source for saying these are the four basic points of view? I didn't know that there was any mainstream research by geneticists making any clear claims as to how much of the difference owes to genetic factors. Isn't this one area where scientific research is still wide open? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the question is "What are the causes behind and/or contributing factors to the widely observed 15± point difference in IQ between American White and Black populations?", I think the 4 options presented above are the result of applying common sense. Snyderman and Rothman apparently came to the same conclusion, and that's how they put the question to the experts they polled. If you're looking for research from geneticists (of the non-behavioral sort) discussing the causes behind IQ difference between populations, then chances are you won't find much. But, then again, that shouldn't come as a surprise, and I trust you understand why.

I'd like to see the article take position #4, as that is the position (IMO) the APA report takes. This, however, does not preclude the necessity of discussing #1, #2 and #3 in appropriate depth. Pushing any of these views as the "right" one, however, is not acceptable, nor is presenting any of them as "inherently flawed". --Aryaman (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to open a possible avenue of resolution here. If we can admit that proposition #3 is highly controversial, is in fact a minority opinion overall in science (despite the Snyderman & Rothman survey, which within science only polled intelligence experts and totally ignored biologists, anthropologists and philosophers of science which seem to be the main opposition to the proposition -- we can even say that while #3 finds support among psychologists, it seems to be rejected by other sciences, with appropriate references, of course), then I would not object to a proportional representation of #3 (and I never really have, for that matter). I don't know how palatable or not you'd find this. And for the record, it is quite possible that some elements from the 2006 version may be salvageable for inclusion here, but these elements should be discussed and consensus built for their inclusion on an individual basis. I think you'll find wholesale revert will just fast-track us to ANI. Not constructive. --Ramdrake (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the collection of opinions that have been expressed thus far, I kind of doubt that we’d be able to build the necessary consensus for reverting the entire article. David.Kane and Varoon Arya both have said that they would prefer reverting the entire article to the 2006 version, although they would also approve of just reincorporating certain elements from it; I would find either solution acceptable; Fences & Windows would approve of reincorporating elements from the earlier version but not of reverting the whole article; and your own opinion (at least, the one you expressed in your initial comment) is that you would not want to use any content from the earlier version. So the opinions for vs. against reverting the whole article would be three to two, while going by the opinion you expressed originally, the opinions about reincorporating certain elements from the earlier version would be four to one. I don’t think three to two can be considered a consensus, but four to one definitely is.

Considering your own opinion as well as everyone else’s, I think re-using elements from the 2006 version (rather than reverting the whole article) is the best possible compromise here, as well as the one most supported by consensus. You’re welcome to make suggestions about the way in which we go about this, but as long as the other four editors involved in this article approve of the changes being made, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the rest of us to avoid making certain changes because of a single editor disagreeing with them. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I do not want my opinion to come down as my opposing to import any content from the Dec 2006 version (and if it did come across as that, I misspoke and apologize for it). However, I must insist that each proposed import be subjected to discussion and consensus before importing. Right now, there seems to be a small consensus to import some of the material, but which material has not been discussed (certainly not agreed upon). Let's then discuss which material. Also, I would recommend waiting until a few more editors have chimed in. After all, this is the weekend, where fewer editors are usually active. This article has waited for a long time: there is no rush.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no sense to turning the clock back a few years especially when that version was contentious. Why? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

“I see no sense to turning the clock back a few years especially when that version was contentious. Why?”

VA and I already answered this question in our earlier comments. At this point, Ramdrake appears to no longer have a problem with this idea, so if you oppose it you’re the only editor here who does.

Ramdrake: I think having to discuss each edit individually probably isn’t necessary, and may actually make it more difficult to fix the problem with this article that I’m hoping to fix here. The problem that I’m trying to address is the fact that when an editor to this article is trying to push a POV, they tend to tear through the article changing everything that they want to, regardless of whether doing so goes against consensus—we saw this most recently in T34CH’s case—while any attempt to undo these types of changes tends to require a lengthy discussion resulting in consensus for each change. What this has usually meant is that the article becomes more unbalanced and less encyclopedic considerably faster than it can be improved. One of my goals with this proposal is to find a way that the article can be improved more quickly than the rate at which it tends to degenerate.

If you look at this article’s talk pages from any point in fall of 2006, you’ll see that the general content of the article during that period was supported by a consensus that’s considerably more robust than anything we currently have. As I stated before, one reason I consider this version a good model to use is because it was before the article’s content was significantly affected by POV-pushing. I’m including POV-pushing from both sides here; Jagz seems to have done this in favor of the hereditarian perspective, but December of 2006 was before he became involved in the article.

I’ve already given an overview in my initial proposal of what changes I’d like to make, and at this point everyone except Slrubenstein has said that they either approve of this or at least don’t oppose it. Beyond what we’ve resolved already, I think some amount of WP:BOLDness is appropriate here. We’ve already discussed my proposed changes in considerably more depth than any of the changes that T34CH made last month, and after he had made these changes, you argued in favor of keeping them until there was a consensus to undo them. So if in my case you require each change to be discussed ahead of time before it can be made at all, you appear to be applying a double standard. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, you oppose unilateral action against your POV (such as T34CH's - which wasn't unilateral editing at all but attempts based on talk page discussions), but you want unilateral (read undiscussed) action when it serves your POV "I think having to discuss each edit individually probably isn’t necessary". I'll make my point clear: I generally oppose reverting to the Dec 2006 version. I don't oppose introducing some of the material from that version, though, if it has been discussed and consensus to include it has been secured. Otherwise, I do oppose the idea. So, please don't twist other editors' words and positions to try to present your position as stronger than it is. And in the future, I would appreciate you refraining from canvassing off-page to gather voices to push the article towards your POV, as you just did yesterday night[10].--Ramdrake (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of those users were already currently involved in the article, and my request for their input was brief and neutrally worded. If you read WP:canvassing, it’s pretty clear that my actions were not a violation of this.

The difference between T34CH’s actions and what I’m proposing is that most of his edits were never discussed at all. In my case, we’re discussing them right now. Including DJ’s opinion, there are now five editors who agree that material from 2006 should be incorporated into the article, and four of the five have also agree that the balance of the article is skewed in favor of the environmental hypothesis and that this needs to be corrected. There was no such consensus in favor of the changes T34CH made.

The only question here is whether this consensus would be sufficient to edit the article. Since this is considerably more of a consensus than what existed in T34CH’s case, I think it’s sufficient. In your own case, you think it’s insufficient, whereas that T34CH’s blatantly unsupported edits were acceptable. Considering the consensus supports my proposed changes considerably more than it supported what he did, why do think his changes were acceptable but mine are not? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

However, notifying only those three editors which you knew were likely sympathetic to your idea is a type of canvassing called votestacking. So, it's still canvassing. I'm not sure we're discussing your edits, as I haven't really seen a list of points to incorporate from the 2006 version (those that were suggested were totally unacceptable -the race OR, the brain size non-issue, etc.) And please, don't play on the fact that a few editors support you in some ways. I don't think there's a consensus either way yet, and I'm left with the impression you're trying to steamroll changes with as little discussion as possible, as rapidly as possible. Just prove me wrong. We could begin with a note at WP:NPOVN or an RfC to test whether your proposition indeed does have consensus. Right now, four people is really limited.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Going to RfC or NPOVN without a concrete suggestion in hand would be premature, IMO. Nevermind. Ramdrake made the decision for us. --Aryaman (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake: I contacted all of the editors who were currently involved in the article except you, and the only reason I didn’t contact you also is because you’d commented on my proposal already. It’s a bit of a stretch to call it “votestacking” when I’ve sent notices about a discussion to all of an article’s active users who weren’t already participating in the discussion. If I were actually trying to stack votes in my favor, I would have contacted Aprock also, since he’s someone who approved of my suggestion and is no longer participating here.

In any case, the impression I’ve gotten from Varoon Arya, David.Kane and DistributiveJustice is that they approve of also incorporating the elements from 2006 that you have problems with, but I’m willing to wait a little while longer to see whether anyone other than you and Slrubenstein has any problems with what I’ve suggested. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I see two problems with the current article, of which one is also present in the previous article. Problem 1: there's a lengthy empirical debate described in great detail which is mostly unimportant (in the details) for the vast majority of readers. This is true of both versions. Problem 2: The current version reads like one side of that argument. Conclusion: reverting or otherwise merging would reduce the number of problems from two to one, but there would still be one big problem. Possible fix: blank the hypotheses section entirely. Pull material from both past versions as appropriate or rewrite entirely as appropriate. In rewriting, I would suggest that arguments about theory are more important to detail than arguments about data (to the average reader). It should be enough to point out that almost every piece of data is contested and give examples of different kinds of data with different interpretations (pick canonical examples; or even highlight what kind of data people say would be convincing if it existed). Consensus "knowns" would be great too of course, but there appear to be very few. --DJ (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the debate over environmental vs. genetic effects is one of the central aspects of the topic of race and intelligence, I think it would be inappropriate to not provide any coverage of the arguments made by either side in this debate. However, this section could possibly be reduced. Do you have any specific suggestions on how it could be reduced without removing it entirely? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree. To clarify, that topic should be covered in that section, but I think it can be done with a reduced level of detail describing debate over individual studies. It should be possible to abstract that out a level while preserving the meaningfulness. --DJ (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note a few opinions are not sufficient to revert 3 years of collaborative effort. This talk page just keeps going in circles the last few months among the same 4-8 or so editors, so an RFC/Mediation is highly advisable to move the article forward. Also, I'm tired of seeing people complain about my edits but never say what was wrong with them. The only attempt I saw was by Dave, who pointed to one of Ramdrake's edits. The majority of my edits were to restructure the article as discussed. I also wrote some intro paragraphs to sections which were just a start and eventually got edited by everyone. If there's beef with my edits, discuss the edits directly, or take my actions to ANI. Otherwise, stop discussing me as you have. It's very childish and has nothing to do with improving the article. T34CH (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree: I saw this issue being brought up on the NPOV noticeboard and thought I'd offer a comment here. The current version of the article looks considerably more unbalanced and disorganized than the 2006 version. I think it would be a good idea to either revert entirely or to at least incorporate most of the old version into the current one. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

UN Statement on Race (1951)

Of perhaps purely historical interest (though it deals with the issue of race and intelligence directly) is the 1951 UN Statement on Race. This is an interesting document, seeing as it preceded Jensen's article in Harvard Educational Review (1969) which set off the whole modern debate. --Aryaman (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Historically interesting but the science and the scientific concepts on which it rests is obviously somewhat dated.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

References regarding some earlier points of debate

I've found this very interesting paper on what could be construed as "races" within the human species: [11] Here's an interesting quote which I think goes to the heart of the debate we previously had on the biological significance of the classical concept of human races:

So while the amount and distribution of genetic variation is largely irrelevant to the question of whether a species is divided into biologically significant races generally, it is relevant to the question of whether ‘‘ordinary’’ conceptions of folk racial categories in humans have any biological support, and to this question there is a broad consensus that the answer is ‘‘no.’’ Biology, it has been rightly noted many times, cannot underwrite the sort of racial concepts that have usually been applied to humans.

Hope it helps better situate the current situation on the existence of human races.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Two specific issues here. (1) The backtracking argument from folk taxonomies to natural kinds isn't the one that's relevant to this article (but would be to other articles). That just answers the question of whether racial groups exactly match natural kinds, which of course they don't. The more relevant formulation is just an empirical question of how different groups (however identified) actually are. (2) What specifically matters to this article related in this area is the evolvability of group differences in intellectual abilities. This is what actually addresses the a priori probability of a genetic explanation. Were I authoring an intro to the hypotheses section, I would lead with that question and examples of a few opinions on that topic. Nisbett (2009) addresses this pretty clearly. --DJ (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why are we getting bogged down in papers which use folk taxonomies as a starting point for their research, and with some editors trying to bridge folk taxonomies with genetic clusters within humans?--Ramdrake (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

From my POV, what I see is standard social science use of "race" -- the same as you see in elsewhere in psychology and sociology, with all its faults and benefits. Not sure what you mean by bridging to clusters. --DJ (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I also found these very interesting articles which seem to disucss exactly the kind of issues we've been debating lately: [12][13][14] [15]. I was partly surprised to find out that many of those very interesting articles come from the domain of philosophy of the sciences. Go figure. :)

But very honestly, these 4-5 papers I've just mentioned are highly recommended reading to all editors in this discussion.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Block's (1995) summary ("exegesis") of Jensen's (1969; 1973) argument is wrong and Sesardic's (2000) is right. I find that Flynn (1980) does an excellent job of explaining it clearly while synthesizing the various responses from Lewontin and others. Flynn's more recent book (2007) continues that excellent work. There's a long history of people making contributions to this literature for the first (and usually only) time. The net misunderstanding from all of those contributions would make this an incomprehensible topic if they were all taken at face value. --DJ (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I second DJ's view. Having read Flynn's earlier work, I have to say he exhibits exemplary treatment of the material in a scholarly manner without devolving into personal attacks or indulging in the misrepresentation of findings in order to make a point. --Aryaman (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Flynn's writings are consistently close to the aims of a Neutral presentation when he aims to present a summary. I would turn to him first as a secondary source to summarize others' views fairly. --DJ (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some more interesting refs: [16][17][18]. This last one is more specific to Pioneer Fund-related research: [19].--Ramdrake (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This editorial piece: [20] is also of keen interest. It highlights the fact that opposition to the hereditarian position comes mostly from geneticists. --Ramdrake (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, a lot of these references capture rather old debates, which is certainly valuable. The problem with much of the older writing is that it is biased towards opinions that were more common or developing at the time but which have since been recalibrated towards a more nuanced position. Here's a citation, used in the current article, that does mention a lot of the contemporary issues (published in 2007): doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00037.x. I can't say with certainty that it does so neutrally. The fact that it doesn't present simple yes/no answers is a good indicator that it's capturing something of contemporary opinion. --DJ (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)