Talk:Race and intelligence

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

problems with History of the debate section

This section clearly has significant pov problems. The biggest problem is that section is not a proper summary of the main article, and does not follow WP:SUMMARY style. This has lead to an agrandizement of the hereditarian viewpoint, and a minimization of the mainstream viewpoint.

• The dominant viewpoint is smeared by association with political correctness in the second paragraph: "environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role in part due to ... reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims".
• Nearly the entire section focuses on showcasing the viewpoints of hereditarian researchers, using descriptions of their research and conclusions like: "poor educational performance was not primarily the result of lacking education, but reflected an underlying genetic cause", "the main causes for poverty in Africa is a low average intelligence".
• Much of the historical criticism is described in opaque phrases like: "sparked controversy", "some critical", "his critque", "controversial interview".
• The presentation of the APA report in that section emphasizes the hereditarian viewpoint that both genetic and environmental causes are equally plausible.
• The role of the Pioneer Fund and it's historic status as a leader in scientific racism is minimized.

Probably the best way to handle this section is to reduce it's size using proper WP:SUMMARY style. As time permits, I will review more sections. aprock (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what the dominant position is? According to the only poll of IQ experts ever done, the hereditarian position is the dominant one: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Both hereditarians and all-environmentalists are mentioned about equally. How does this favor the hereditarian position: "The Bell Curve also led to a 1995 report from the American Psychological Association, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", acknowledging a gap between average IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanation of it, either environmental or genetic?" The Pioneer Fund is mentioned with views from both sides.Miradre (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the poll the viewpoint is dominant in psychology. clearly and demonstratedly isn't in Anthropology, and the 1950 UNESCO statement on race pretty much establishes it as outside of the mainstream of political sciences, where it has been since then. Here is the 1978 update[1] (notice article 1.4) HEre is the revision to the statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists of 1996 [2] (notice article 11)·Maunus·ƛ· 18:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is only US anthropology which rejects race. In other nations it is seen as valid in anthropology. As it is even in the US in for example anatomy.Miradre (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you present sources for the notion that other anthropological traditions disagree with the UNESCO statement? And as for "anatomy" that is physical anthropology and the American Association of Physical Anthropology clearly rejects the notion of racial differencs in mental faculties. Wikipedia is works by citing sources you know, please present sources that show that other Anthropological and anatomical associations disagree with UNESCO. Or indeed any reliable and authoritative source that would suggest that the UNESCO statement of 1978 does not still represent the mainstream view. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Science is not determined by political decisions.

• "In Poland the race concept was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists in 2001, although: "Unlike the U.S. anthropologists, Polish anthropologists tend to regard race as a term without taxonomic value, often as a substitute for population.""

• "Liberman et al. in a 2004 study claimed to "present the currently available information on the status of the concept in the United States, the Spanish language areas, Poland, Europe, Russia, and China. Rejection of race ranges from high to low with the highest rejection occurring among anthropologists in the United States (and Canada). Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba, and lowest in Russia and China." Methods used in the studies reported included questionnaires and content analysis."

• "Kaszycka et al. (2009) in 2002-2003 surveyed European anthropologists' opinions toward the biological race concept. Three factors, country of academic education, discipline, and age, were found to be significant in differentiating the replies. Those educated in Western Europe, physical anthropologists, and middle-aged persons rejected race more frequently than those educated in Eastern Europe, people in other branches of science, and those from both younger and older generations."The survey shows that the views of anthropologists on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced and highly dependent on education.""

• "A 2010 examination of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the race concept. The study gives examples of how the textbooks claim that anatomical features vary between races."

I am aware of that study - but this does not mean that eastern european anthropological associations do not accept the UNESCO statement, nor that the UNESCO statement is not the closest thing to a mainstream that we have. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Miradre, I believe you are confusing "race" with "race and intelligence" here. Please refer to point 11 on the UNESCO statement that Maunus linked to. aprock (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A political decree does not decide truth in science. Does not matter if it is UNESCO or Stalin.Miradre (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't a question about WP:TRUTH in science. You asked about the dominant view. Regardless, the main problem is that the section does not properly summarize the main article. aprock (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - this is not about truth it is about which view is and has been the mainstream view since 1950.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to read the view of UNESCO decades ago, read that statement. If you want to read the view of the experts on this subject, read this The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Why is it not summarized properly? A dispute about how to summarize is not necessarily a NPOV dispute.Miradre (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The AAPA are experts in race. The group surveyed by Snyderman/Rothman are experts in IQ.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO statement is more recent than the Snyderman/Rothman survey. For details on the problems with the summary, please see the initial edit in this section. aprock (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO decree is from 1950, updated 1978. The Snyderman/Rothman survey is from 1988. I have answered the initial edit.Miradre (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the 1996 AAPA statement. If you want people to take you seriously, it would probably help if you avoided labeling sources that you don't agree with as decrees. I'm not sure what else to say at this point. If you'd like to continue discussing the issues in a constructive manner, I'd be happy to. Until then, I shall once again disengage. When I've got more time I will go over the next section. aprock (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The studies showing what anthropologists think outside the US are more recent than 1996. The AAA does not decree what all the world's anthropologists think. I have replied to your points. Now I wait for you to reply to me. it is your turn. If not, I will remove the tags.Miradre (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the tag after having been represented with such substantial rationales for their continued incluson I will be filing an ArbCom Enforcement request, because that would be plainly disruptive.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to the concrete objections. Now I wait for you to reply to me. It is your turn now.Miradre (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not replied you have dismissed the concerns as invalid based on your problematic interpretation of two problematic studies, and rejected statements by the UNESCO and a professional organizations as specious and not reflective of the mainstream view. I don't see how to argue with that. You have had the opinion of two editors who both believe the article to be biased and have substantiated that opinion with ample evidence and reasoning. You simply disagree with the reasoning. That does not consitute a consensus that the article is not biased and the POV tag can be removed. I think you would do wisely to await more input before removing the tag. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What was problematic about the studies about what anthropologists think in other nations than the US? How was my interpretation problematic? Why should a political organization like UNESCo decide what is true in science? Do you think science may have changed in this area during the last 33 years since UNESCO updated that decree?Miradre (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not about what is true in science - it is about what is the mainstream view. I don't see how a view can be more mainstream than being endorsed by the UN. If the mainstream shifts I am sure the UNESCO will make a new statement. You are using the study of European anthropologists t argue that the UNESCO view of race is not accepted as mainstream in those countries in eastern Europe and that therefore it is not mainstream on a global scale. Now the study firstly does not say what view of race those scholars accept - or whether that view is compatible with the UNESCO statement. It also doesn't suggest that the the countries as a whole do not accept the statement. And it is also not possible to use the fact that dissent may exist to suggest that the UNESCO view is not representative of the mainstream. Your way of using it to extrapolae to conclusions about what is an isn't mainstream worldwide, and to how other countries view the unesco statement (the UN is a global organization!) is basically OR. You are applying a huge double standard in your argument - we have have presented sources that surely represent what is the view of the most mainstream organization on the planet - and you dismiss it because it is not written within the past decade and because one (1) study suggests that Eastern European anthropologists still practice pre-1950 anthropology. And no the last 33 years in science has not seen a substantial change in the public view about race - otherwise a new statement would have been issued, or a number of professional organizations would have issued dissenting statements. They have not. The AAPA is without a doubt the most representative of the mainstream in physical anthropology worldwide, and their 1996 statement updates the 1978 UNESCO statement on some points but does not differ from it on the point of racial differences in mental faculties. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, a 33 years old political decree does not decide what is dominant view today in a field. Regarding anthropology, it is not only some European anthropologists who accept race, but also many in China and Cuba according to the study I cited. An American organization does not decide what every anthropologist in the world should think. As stated, even in the US, anatomy accept race as valid. Also in the US, biologist have simply stopped talking about race, either for or against, in their textbooks, so what their view is either uncertain or afraid to state something politically incorrect. For sports science many more textbooks accept race than do not: Race_(classification_of_humans)#Current_views_across_disciplines. Miradre (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I write here? UNESCO is an international organization with worldwide participation. This is the mainstream view'. AAPA is the meanistream of physical anthropologists world wide and you have not presented any evidence that other countries Anthropological Associations do not endorse the AAPA statement or the UNESCO statement. This is not about what people shoudl think it is about how to determine which view is the mainstream. You are presenting to pitiful surveys of individuals in Eastern Europe China and Cuba - I am presenting official statements from official bodies. This is going nowhere fast and this article is going to need some official dispute resolution very soon.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement also states this "Population groups of foreign origin, particularly migrant workers and their families who contribute to the development of the host country, should benefit from appropriate measures designed to afford them security and respect for their dignity and cultural values and to facilitate their adaptation to the host environment and their professional advancement with a view to their subsequent reintegration in their country of origin and their contribution to its development; steps should be taken to make it possible for their children to be taught their mother tongue." So does this mean that the mainstream scientific view is that immigrants and their children should return home after a while? Should Wikipedia state this as the mainstream scientific view? Obviously not, this is a political statement, not a scientific one. What the IQ experts who study the issue think can be seen here: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book).Miradre (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And here communication officially breaks down. I don't even think there is a name for that logical fallacy you just commited, but I definitely can't continue discussion at this level. I'll be looking for the appropriate venue to get some community involvement in this issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, community involvement is indeed needed.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are NPOV issues, then please give concrete examples so the article can improved. You gave some good concrete criticisms in past which improved the article, so if there are more, then please state them.Miradre (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at the passages Maunus points too: UNESCO: "4. All peoples of the world possess equal faculties for attaining the highest level in intellectual, technical, social, economic, cultural and political development." This passage is ambiguous. I can either mean: 1) all peoples, in the collective sense, possess equal faculties for..., 2) all individuals of all populations possess equal faculties for ..., or 3) between populations there are the same ratios of individuals with the capacity for ...

Of these 2) is trivially false as is 3) when you think about it. My guess is that 1) is meant. Perhaps Maunus can inform us as to his interpretation. The interpretation in important since the hereditarian hypothesis says nothing about the collective abilities of peoples. Jensen (1973) makes this rather clear. The hereditarian hypothesis concerns itself strictly with between population ratios and says nothing about collective capacity; the two may be related but they may not be. I would suggest that the UNESCO position, as such, in no way conflicts with the hereditarian hypothesis. I could be wrong, but we would need more information than can be found in the paper to determine this. We will have to wait until Maunus locates that information.

Sheesh this conversation is laughable. Miadre is of course right that the UNESCO statement has about as much scholarly credibility as the Nuremberg finding on Katyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My point was that there isn't a clear contradiction between the UNESCO position and the hereditarian position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Common garden"

"He also argues that phrasing the question in terms of heritability is useless since heritability applies only within groups, but cannot be used to compare traits across groups. Templeton argues that the only way to design a study of the genetic contrtibution to intelligence would be to study populations of hybrid individuals in a Mendelian "common garden" design, and he further argues that when this design has been carried out it has shown no significant correlation between any cognitive and the degree of African or European ancestry."

That is unclear. What is a "common garden" design? What studies are are Templeton refering to? If it are those mentioned elsewhere then this should be pointed out.Miradre (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mendel raised hybrids in a common garden where they were subject to the same environmental influences. That is what is meant. He refers to studies by Scarr et al. 1977, and Loehlin et al. 1973 and Green 1972. I haven't looked at those yet. IN anycase Templeton is a statistician and a genticist and a very reliable source about this.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You are actually arguing that someone has done this with humans? Should be removed as absurd, especially if you have not looked at the studies itself. Please give the full references for the studies and I will look at them.Miradre (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You do not get to remove "absurdities" by well respected authorities while inserting worse absurdities by fringe scientists. Sorry.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguing that someone has actually been allowed to breed and raise humans in an experiment in such a way is simply absurd. What are the full references?Miradre (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course no one has "bred humans" in a common garden design. But some studies have used a similar research design comparing heritability in individuals with different degrees of ancestry in similar environments. Scarr's studies were apparently from Brazil - where it would be more plausible to have mixed ancestry people grow up in similar social environments.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Scarr, Katz & Barker. 1977. Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population. HUman Genetics 39: 69-89.
• Loehlin, Vandenber & Osborne. 1973. Blood group genes and Negro-white ability differences. Behavior genetics 3 263-270.
• Green, R. F. 1972. on the correlation between IQ and amount of "white" blood. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. 7. 285-86.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Very old blood group studies. They are discussed elsewhere, at least two of them. I will check what the third one is.Miradre (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Green source was not peer-reviewed but just a presentation at a conference. This topic is already covered in blood group discussions. Seems like Templeton is just rehashing some very old arguments.Miradre (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, why cannot heritability be compared across groups? Is it just Lewontin's argument regarding heritability not measuring all environmental factors that can differ between groups again? Miradre (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it is only statistically valid within a group: "the first step in calculating variance is to subtract off the mean. This means that a heritability is insensitive to the mean value of a trait within a population. You can shift the trait value up or down due to environmental factors without it affecting the heritability. It also means that mean differences among populations are uninformative about underlying genetic differences". (Templeton p. 49)·Maunus·ƛ· 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is just Lewontin's argument again, even if Templeton does not acknowledge this.Miradre (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In short, there is nothing new in this section. His arguments are: 1. Race does not exist. Discussed in the "The validity of "race" and "IQ"" section. 2. Repeating Leowontin's argument. Discussed in the "Heritability within and between groups" section. 3. Ancient blood group studies. Discussed in the "Degree of geographic ancestry" section. In short, there is nothing here that is not already covered elsewhere so I see no need for this section.Miradre (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus seems to misunderstand the within-group between groups argument. Here is a link to a paper about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I'm going to alter the following comment:

(This argument is important because it has been commonly employed by Hereditarians and critiqued by environmentalists . Jensen made it in 1973, 1982, 1998. Murray and Herrnstein made it in the Bell Curve. Sesardic made it on 2000 and 2005. Nelson points to it in 2010.)

Here is a balanced coherent rewrite of the argument: "Hereditarians have argued that the high within group heritability of IQ in conjunction with the magnitude of the gap makes it likely that the Black-White gap has a partial genetic basis [1]. James Flynn has outlined the argument [2]:

Originally, Jensen argued: (1) the heritability of IQ within whites and probably within blacks was 0.80 and between family factors accounted for only 0.12 of IQ variance — with only the latter relevant to group differences; (2) the square root of the percentage of variance explained gives the correlation between between-family environment and IQ, a correlation of about 0.33 (square root of 0.12=0.34); (3) if there is no genetic difference, blacks can be treated as a sample of the white population selected out by environmental inferiority; (4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 Sds (3 ×.33 =1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that — it means the average black cognitive environment is below the bottom 0.2% of white environments; (6) evading this dilemma entails positing a fantastic “factor X”, something that blights the environment of every black to the same degree (and thus does not reduce within-black heritability estimates), while being totally absent among whites (thus having no effect onwithin-white heritability estimates).

This argument has been criticized for a number of reasons. Richard Nisbett has argued that the heritability of IQ is significantly less that .8 for both Blacks and Whites; he has also argued that the Black-White gap could be caused by numerous environmental effects which add up to explain the difference [3]. Dickens and Flynn have argued that the secular increase in IQ (i.e the Flynn effect) demonstrates that the conventional interpretation of heritability is flawed; they maintain that the conventional interpretation ignores the role of feedback between factors, such as those with a small initial IQ advantage, genetic or environmental, seeking out more stimulating environments which will gradually greatly increase their advantage, which, as one consequence in their alternative model, would mean that the "heritability" figure is only in part due to direct effects of genotype on IQ [2].

Hereditarians have replied in turn that the heritability of IQ peeks in adulthood and is consistently shown to be above .70 [5]; They also maintain that the Black-White difference represents a difference in general intelligence, while the Flynn effect does not; as such, they argue that the nature of the Flynn effect is different from that of the Black-White gap [5]. Additionally, Jensen has argued that a non-conventional interpretation of heritability (a la Flynn and Dickens)implies between group genetic differences [6].

[1] Sesardic, 2000. Philosophy of Science that Ignores Science: Race, IQ and Heritability [2] Flynn, 2010. The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate [3] Nielson, 2010. Intelligence of Culture. [4] Rushton and Jensen, 2010. The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap [5] Rushton and Jensen, 2010. Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It [6] Jensen, 1973. Educatability and group differences.

I think something like this looks fine. But it refers to the "Heritability within and between groups" section. I was discussing the "Race and genetics section".Miradre (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated above there is nothing the "Race and genetics" section not covered elsewhere. So I think it should be removed. Any objections with explanations? Miradre (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of new tags...

So are there reasons for the tags? I would be glad to discuss any objections... Miradre (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

History of controversy

The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy - the two sentences for this book do not support each other. The first says the author accused the press of liberal bias. The second reports on a survey they did (but does not describe how the survey was conducted). There is nothing that tells how the book was related to public policy, either. These ideas do not seem to be connected and the paragraph needs expansion to make the point, whatever it is.Parkwells (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You can read more on in the article on the study.Miradre (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

APA and race and intelligence

"Both the American Psychological Association[dubious – discuss] and the American Anthropological Association have issued statements that there is little evidence of a connection between race and intelligence, and whatever small link might exist, is not genetic in nature"

That is simply false regarding APA. That there are average IQ differences are not disputed by the APAP. See Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.Miradre (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this badly misrepresents the APA. Did he not think to actually read the APA report? What the article now says about it is not a matter of interpretation, it's an outright dishonesty. The report discusses the possibility of a genetic contribution to the gap, and although they say there is no direct evidence for it, its final conclusion is one of agnosticism. To say that the APA has stated "whatever small link exists is definitely not genetic in origin" is extremely disingenuous. Marek should read it if he is uncertain. [3]

It also somewhat misrepresents the AAA. In the AAA statement, the AAA only rejects the idea "that intelligence is biologically determined by race." They don't discuss the idea that intelligence could correlate with race, as Earl Hunt says in his 2011 book - they only reject the idea of absolute racial biological determinism (the idea that racial IQ gaps could be 100% genetic). The AAA statement doesn't reject the idea of a racial IQ gap that's caused by something other than 100% racial biological determinism - they don't discuss other possible causes at all. Volunteer Marek should not have added this paragraph to the lead without discussing it here first. I'm going to remove it until he can build a consensus for inclusion.

Marek also blanked the Segerstråle content with a fairly nonsensical edit summary (are we supposed to just assume that Ullica Segerstråle belongs to the "crazy part" of the ideological spectrum, with no evidence?). It is not a good idea to blank sourced content without discussion, especially on an article that's this controversial. Marek should not continue to do this.Boothello (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are engaging in OR interpretation of primary sources. I've provided a reliable secondary source for the text I added. What YOU think AAA or APA said doesn't matter. What matters is what sources say they said.

Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my statement. I didn't say Ullica Segerstrale was part of the "crazy part" of the ideological spectrum. What I said is that all kinds of non-crazy people - not just those associated with Marxism - have criticized this racist research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not original research. The APA report is itself a secondary source, and I think every editor except you who's involved in this article has read it and knows what it says. Summarizing what it says in the article is just a matter of doing what we do with any other source. This is what the APA report says:

African-American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

The content that you added says "Both the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association have issued statements that there is little evidence of a connection between race and intelligence, and whatever small link might exist, is not genetic in nature." This is the exact opposite of what the APA report says. The paragraph that I quoted says that there is definitely a difference between the average IQ of races, the report says elsewhere that IQ tests are a valid measure of mental ability, and this paragraph also says that nobody knows the cause of this difference.

It looks like you may have found a source that itself is misrepresenting the APA report. If that's so, there are two ways of dealing with this. One is to just apply common sense: to look at the source that this book is claiming to summarize, and see if the book is summarizing that accurately. If it isn't, we should know better than to perpetuate that misrepresentation. If that requires too much critical thinking for your tastes, the other way to handle this is by using whichever source is the more prominent of the two. The American Psychological Association is the largest body of psychologists in the United States, and Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns represents its official position on race and intelligence. The source that you cited is a popular book published by the American Management Association. So we have two sources that disagree with each other: one is the APA report itself, and the other is Amacom's account of what the APA report says, which the APA report itself contradicts. If we have to decide which of these sources is the more prominent of the two, it's not Amacom.Boothello (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I think that the new version of the second paragraph in the lead is slightly misrepresenting the UNESCO statement. Here's that part of the UNESCO report:

According to present knowledge there is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their innate mental characteristics, whether in respect of intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is much the same.

According to the paragraph in the article, the UNESCO report says that "there is no evidence for innate differences in mental capacity between races." Saying that there is no proof is not exactly the same as saying that there is no evidence, and I think the article should make it clearer what UNESCO actually says.

I'm also not sure this should go in the lead section. The lead is supposed to be summarizing the rest of the article, and this isn't summarizing any other part of the article. It's also somewhat redundant with the summary of the APA report in the last paragraph of the lead. Could this paragraph be moved to another section of the article?Boothello (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are reading a distinction into the UNESCO statement that is not actually there. I think it is quite clear that they mean proof not in the sense of "conclusive evidence", but in the sense of overall convincing arguments. I think we can remove the other summary of the APA report frm the lead, since there is no reason to privilege its conclusions over those of the UNESCO, AAA, or AAPA in the lead. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think our own interpretation of the UNESCO statement should matter. Our job is to report what the source says. So if "proof" is the word used by UNESCO, then it should be the word used in the article.

Responding to your other point, the UNESCO statement is sixty years old. I think it's fine that the article mentions it, but I don't think it deserves equal time with a statement from 1996. Psychology has advanced a lot since 1950, and even if there was no proof (or no evidence) about something sixty years ago, that does not demonstrate very much about the state of knowledge today.

The AAA and AAPA reports are more recent, but they don't address the debate over race and intelligence as directly as the APA report does. As I said above, what the AAA report rejects is the idea of absolute biological determinism, but there are very few researchers who believe that racial IQ gaps are 100% genetic. The AAPA report rejects the idea of inherent biological superiority or inferiority, and says that race has no effect on language or the ability to assimilate into a culture, but it does not directly address the topic of race and IQ at all. The lead section of this article has been based on the APA report for a long time, since before me or Midrare were here, and I don't think there's a good reason to change that.

If you think it's important for the views of UNESCO and the AAA to be included, I would suggest creating a new section for this called "group statements". We could also consider including the AAPA statement there, but as I said it does not address the topic of race and IQ at all, so I don't know whether it's relevant.Boothello (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating Miradre's irrelevant and ridiculous criticism of the date of the UNESCO source. It has been ratified three times since it was first published, and it is still the basis for all UN policies regarding human rights. I am not buying it and I don't think anyone else does either. Your interpretation of the AAPA report is a complete misrepresentation. Miradre is in the defensive and now you are taking over his role. It is not going to work. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really been closely watching all your discussions with him, so I don't know if he used the same arguments. I'm only telling you what I think is sensible. It's completely standard practice for Wikipedia articles to give more prominence to more recent sources. I don't think the UNESCO statement should be disregarded or excluded from the article. I'm just saying that it's less current than the APA report, because its most recent version (from 1978) is still more than twice the age of the APA report. If you disagree with that, please provide a reason rather than just lumping me together with Miradre and saying you explained this already.

Also, please quote the part of the AAPA statement that you think addresses the cause of racial IQ gaps. The only part of it I can see that comes close to it is this:

Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.

This says two different things - it says that genetic capacity for mental ability varies between individuals, and it says that all populations have the same ability to assimilate any human culture, so that there's no basis for doctrines such as racial segregation that assume otherwise. Where does this statement say anything about whether or why there are differences in mental ability between races (rather than between individuals)? It looks to me like the AAPA statement is deliberately silent about it.Boothello (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to have this discussion at this point. I have been dealing with Miradre's nonsense twisting of compltely obvious statements for the past couple of months. I am not going to replay it with you. I am sorry but I don't have the patience to play that game any more. The source could hardly be any more clear in saying that there is no biological basis for positing differences in behavior or mental capacity among groups. I cannot continue to assume good faith with this magnitude of distortion of sources. I think you should read it again, and if after having done that once more you still want to go down that road then it will be through some kind of administrative venue.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're running out of patience here. It's a very demanding topic area and in that respect I can't really blame you. I am disappointed, though, that your attitude toward Miradre is being directed at me - it's not my fault if he hasn't been reasonable. If you explained this to him already, then presumably it is his own fault that he doesn't understand it. But it's not reasonable that you won't discuss it with me for this reason, and it means there's no way for me to know what you think is wrong with my suggestions. Wikipedia depends on discussion and consensus-building. If you no longer have the patience to engage in discussion, and are finding yourself unable to assume good faith about the editors who disagree with you, then it might be prudent to take a break from this topic for a while. I can see from your edits and your talk posts that you've been frustrated, and while I understand your frustration, I don't think it's conducive to the project.

I also think that your exclusive focus on opposing me and Miradre isn't helpful, both for you and the articles. Last night was the second time that Volunteer Marek added the same content that was reverted the first time he added it - saying that the position of the APA report is that there's probably no relationship between race and mental ability, even though it's been completely clear that there's no consensus for this change. From your edit summary here I think you know that this misrepresents the APA report, since changing the description to fit the data would not be necessary if it were an accurate summary to begin with. Surely this kind of misrepresentation is something that you can recognize, rather than turning a blind eye to it while you focus on arguing with no one except me and Miradre?Boothello (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic has been and is plagued by Single Purpose editors and puppets of the meat and sock varieties. This long term pattern does mean that assumptions of good faith have a shorter lifespan here than elsewhere. The way you are twisting well known sources and seeing things in them noone but Miradre has ever seen is disconcerting. Marek is not misrepresenting the APA report, the quote he is giving is completely faithful to the source he gives, namely Paige & Witty's book. We may not agree with how Paige and Witty interprets the APA report, but at least their interpretation of it is a reliably published secondary source. In fact we should not be making interpretations of the reports ourselves as they are primary sources in that sense, we should be discovering how reliable secondary sources have summarised them. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

blanket revert

This blanket revert of my edits [4]

1. Removed sourced text as well as the sources themselves.
2. Restored undue information
3. Restored misrepresentation of a source used
4. Resulted in edit conflicts as I was still trying to tweak the article.
5. Removed pertinent information about Binet, which was also sourced.

Quite simply, that was a blind, blanket battleground edit - it doesn't even look like SightWatcher bothered to actually read the edits. He certainly did not give a reason for #s 2-5 and gave a specious and false reason for 1 ("I'm reverting you because one of my buddies reverted you". It's also false that there has been no discussion - did you bother actually looking at the talk page?).

SW, you've removed two pieces of sourced text. Both were inlined cited to reliable sources and are very pertinent to the topic of this article. I would appreciate it if you self reverted as there's just no justification for this kind of disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

...and I most certainly don't see SightWatcher participating in discussion anywhere on this page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)