Talk:Dysgenics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutrality

Can anyone offer a study result which disconfirms the two studies quoted? I recall having read others which gave rates for the decline between those two results, but I have never seen any study which ever reported that intelligence and fertility were positively correlated. Given that IQ is substantially genetic (as described in the article, "Inheritance of intelligence") all that is required to show that genotypic IQ is rising or falling is to demonstrate the existence of a positive or negative correlation between IQ and fertility.

Whether or not IQ is falling is central to the article. In the absence of evidence showing IQ and fertility to be positively correlated, there is no real "con" side to be represented. If you think the article as it is currently written presents a distorted view of reality, find a study showing that the correlation between IQ and fertility is non-negative! Harkenbane 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been over a month, and no one has been able to supply a study demonstrating that there isn't a negative correlation between IQ and fertility, so, I am removing the neutrality tag. Harkenbane (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In normal (i.e. non-modern) human societies there of course would be a positive correlation, otherwise intelligence like humans have could never have evolved. Indeed, such a correlation probably persists in societies where the going is still tough, such as modern hunter gatherers. After all, if there wasn't, intelligence would again tend to decline through accumulation of random mutations. It is only in societies where you don't need to be intelligent to get by in life that there is much likelihood of there being a negative correlation. Richard001 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Harkenbane (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring the impact of extra-pair paternity and other confounding factors. In any case, no scientific consensus exists for dysgenic effects in humans. To suggest otherwise is an extreme point of view. I've reverted your edits to the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Walter, you (and all other Wikipedians) had a month to come up with a study showing that the correlation between IQ and fertility is non-negative, and you still have nothing to offer. Bear in mind that the article isn't biased in favor of one side if there is no opposing side to be represented. If you think extra-pair paternity and other confounds are important, you can mention that in the article. Or, if you think there is a lack of scientific consensus, you can mention some scientists who think they have evidence against the existence of a stable dysgenic trend throughout modern nations - but I think you'll have trouble finding any heavy hitters. The most lauded figure to consider the question of dysgenic fertility that I am aware of is Jensen, and Jensen clearly weighs in with the dysgenists; on page 484 of his g factor, he reviews Vining's work and writes: "there has been an overall downward trend in the genotypic IQ of both the white and the black populations," describing the evidence for this as "solid." I know of no scientists of any repute who disagree with this analysis. If there are some, then mention them; if not, there is no opposing view to be represented. Harkenbane (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New findings on human evolution

Might want to add this to the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin --Calibas (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see its relevance; the article topic isn't mentioned in the citation. Human evolution might be a better fit, but that is an article well-sourced in the scientific literature. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because the article topic is or is not mentioned is not the sole criterion for inclusion; after reviewing the article, I can see that it deserves some mention - it says, essentially, that researchers find that the pace of human evolution is accelerating; dysgenesis is directly concerned with the rate and direction of human evolutionary change. I'd like to see what others think about the subject, however. Harkenbane (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Factuality / NPOV issues

I recently reviewed the scientific journals, doing searches for "dysgenic trend," checking the articles that came up, and finding the articles cited by these articles. While this literature search is unlikely to be exhaustive, I think it does show that there is scientific evidence for dysgenesis at present, with a lively discussion among the researchers who generally interpret the evidence as supporting dysgenesis. I have sourced the text in the "Scientific Findings" sections in a way that allows anyone who wonders about accuracy to demonstrate to themselves that the articles claims are indeed factual.

I have also reviewed Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which states:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Although I'm open to alternative interpretations regarding majority status, I think that the ease with which a small dysgenic trend can be substantiated by a review of scientific journals establishes the majority view. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone who can find prominent adherents of the minority view to improve the article by adding their arguments, but in the absence of any evidence to bolster the minority view, it does not belong in Wikipedia.

I urge future editors of this article who suspect it of being biased or nonfactual to demonstrate which claims are erroneous, or that there is a neglected point of view. Please think carefully before insisting without support that the article is biased or nonfactual.

Harkenbane (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Vening?

The sentence "In 1982, Vining sought to address these issues..." is the first time that this 'Vining' is introduced. Perhaps this can be expanded upon... 71.65.254.179 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

Also, on a second note, I'm a bit confused about what this article is implying. According to other studies average IQ is increasing, but this article seems to imply that the average is going down because fertility rates of people with lower IQ is higher. Perhaps this should be clarified, unless my reading comprehension just isn't up to par today... ;) 71.65.254.179 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

actually, some information from IQ#The_Dickens_and_Flynn_model might be used. 71.65.254.179 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's already in the article (see the last paragraph of "Scientific Investigation") but I can see that it might not feature prominently enough right now. If no one else wants to take a crack at it, I might expand the article in a few days. Harkenbane (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I removed the following content. The uncited assertion that "education is known to be a good proxy for IQ" is crucial to its relevance. I'm sure that good citations exist to the contrary. For it to be relevant to the article, it must be demonstrated that education is a good proxy for "beneficial" allele frequency, even more dubious. Even so, it is likely to be WP:OR, unless the citations mention the article topic.

In my opinion, this article is a WP:POVFORK of Eugenics, an attempt to evade WP:POV. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another way of checking the negative relationship between IQ and fertility is to consider the relationship which educational attainment has to fertility, since education is known to be a good proxy for IQ. One such study carried out in 1991 found that high school dropouts in America had the most children (2.5 on average), with high school graduates having fewer children, and college graduates having the fewest children (1.56 on average). Among a sample of women using a reliable form of birth control, success rates were related to IQ, with the percentages of high, medium and low IQ women having unwanted births during a three-year interval being 3%, 8% and 11%, respectively. Another study found that after an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, higher IQ couples are more likely to obtain abortions ; and unmarried teenage girls who become pregnant are found to be more likely to carry their babies to term if they are doing poorly in school. Conversely, while desired family size is apparently the same for women of all IQ levels, highly educated women are found to be more likely to say that they desire more children than they have, indicating a "deficit fertility" in the highly intelligent. In her review of reproductive trends in the United States, Van Court argues that "each factor - from initially employing some form of contraception, to successful implementation of the method, to termination of an accidental pregnancy when it occurs - involves selection against intelligence."

WS, is it so difficult to assume good faith in other posters? Yes, I agree that "education is known to be a good proxy for IQ" probably ought to be sourced; however, the relationship between educational attainment and IQ is so well known (see for instance the APA task force report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns which reports r>.5) that it is simply taken for granted throughout the literature which tries to get at dysgenesis indirectly. Education isn't the only proxy that has been used; consider also the research which used appearance in Who's Who as a proxy for intelligence.

More importantly, I don't agree with your claim that the text you deleted represents original research, which "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." The information provided is published in reliable journals, as should be evident because it is well sourced. That it is directly related to the topic of the article should be obvious, and it does directly support the information provided - in fact, it really does little more than corroborate what Vining already demonstrated using actual IQ scores. Whether or not the citations mention the article topic by name is irrelevant to the fact that they are relevant to the topic.

Thus, I hope you aren't surprised that I am reverting your edit, although I will provide a source to the APA article for the claim that educational IQ is a good proxy for IQ. (I do admit that your pointing out the need for a source there was helpful.) In closing, although I realize that you are trying to improve the article, I don't think your knowledge of the science behind the topic warrants such strong reactions. Harkenbane (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, I just noticed, after restoring the article, that it already gave a source - IQ#School_performance which says "Correlations between IQ scores and total years of education are about .55, implying that differences in psychometric intelligence account for about 30% of the outcome variance," taking this straight from the APA article I just mentioned. Was it so hard to check the link before assuming the claim was unsourced? Harkenbane (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

"So what?" section

There seems to be a void in this article where there ought to be some sort of conclusion. Specifically, it might be useful to discuss what it would mean if IQ were falling, citing discussions on the interpretation of IQ (e.g. does it really measure "intelligence," & if IQ rose 15 points from the Flynn Effect, will smaller effects from dysgenesis make any difference, etc). This might also be a good place to add a discussion on Lynn's Dysgenics; I haven't read it, so other users will be in a much better position to comment, here. Harkenbane (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenic Fallacy & Global IQ

Methinks it is necessary to note that such an equilibrium as mentioned in said section would only occur if each group has a uniform birth-rate. This is not the case today on a global scale, and should be noted as such.

Any good sources that could be cited to lend credence to this? Skirnir (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I'm removing the section on lead poisoning, because such a toxin would have have had only environmental, rather than genetic, consequences. Harkenbane (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of the Gillfallen paper is "Roman Culture and Dysgenic Lead Poisoning". With dysgenic in the title, it is relevant to the history of the term as is the Needleman and Needleman refutation thereof. The section is well-sourced, as well. I've restored it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an irrelevant distraction, not only because their argument was refuted and therefore ends up being of little interest, but because it doesn't use the term in the sense covered here or used throughout the mainstream. I haven't noticed that kind of thing in other Wikipedia articles; perhaps you know of some well-constructed article which contains sections of that nature to provide some sort of precedent, here? Harkenbane (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is well-cited and relevant to the history section. It is commonly mentioned in the literature, especially the historical literature. Harkenbane (talk · contribs · count) is a tendentious WP:SPA pushing an extreme point of view, in my opinion. I'm restoring the Gillfallen content and adding the totally disputed tag. The article, as currently written, bares scant resemblance to mainstream scientific thought. It violates the undue weight section of WP:NPOV by dwelling on dysgenic effects in humans whereas the only significant scientific work on this topic applies to non-humans because of the difficulty of such work on a species with a long generation time and ethical problems. One of the few reputable scientific sources (Scientific American) says of one of the proponents of dysgenic effects in humans that “Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity.” Please see the article footnotes. I think this quotation should be moved into the article and not buried in the footnotes to make this article more balanced. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Lead isn't commonly mentioned in the scientific literature at all. If you really feel very strongly about it, fine, leave it in - I think it's a waste of space, but the article isn't long as it is.

2. The article bears plenty of resemblance to mainstream scientific thought. Look at the Scientific Investigation section, where you'll find studies by these quite ordinary scientists listed: Van Court, Bachu, Urdry, Cohen, Olson, Weller, Teasdale, Owen. There are plenty of other emminent psychologists who have reviewed the evidence and think the case for dysgenics is strong, such as Jensen (see especially _Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations With Arthur R. Jensen_), as well as Eysenk and Cattell; and while I realize that Richard Lynn is a controversial researcher, his book, dysgenics, was favorably reviewed by plenty of scholars, like Gerhard Meisenberg, William Hamilton, and Vining!

3. Mainly, it is those who are concerned with dysgenics in human populations that consider it worth studying or discussing. If you want to add content about dysgenics in nonhumans, please do so!

4. I think I've adequately addressed in point 2 that Lynn is not central to this issue. I agree that a quick mention of the controversy surrounding Lynn is helpful and interesting to some readers, but I really think you're the one giving undue weight to a peripheral issue, here. Haven't you noticed that Scientific American is a popular science magazine, or that Kamin, the author of that quote you think is so important, is widely known to be a Marxist?

5. Walter, rather than complaining about the article not being neutral, I suggest you improve it and add to it so that it doesn't seemed biased to you. Given that I've contributed numerous scientific studies and quotes by researchers, while it looks like you've provided some anti-Lynn links and a paragraph about lead, I hope you can understand why I think you're the one pushing an unscientific POV. I'd like to see you find and add quotes by researchers in the field who argue against the validity of the research that is provided. Harkenbane (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the recent growth of the article I support removing the lead poisoning section. Googling for the article brings up only 10 results, non of the links being of any significance. --Zero g (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OC

Has there being any discussion on adding opportunity cost of time to explain the fertility differential between highly educated and low educated people? Brusegadi (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I considered it, but I haven't had much feedback on this article, so I've tried to stay very closely to the facts. Because I know of no public figure who made this (rather obvious) claim, I didn't feel comfortable adding it, myself. If you think it needs to go in, feel free to add it! Harkenbane (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

External Link - Future Generations?

I see we have a minor revert skirmish! Rather than joining the fray, I'd like to ask if Ramdrake and Zero G would like to provide more thorough explanations for whether or not Future Generations should be listed among the external links. I will add that, as Marian Van Court is mentioned in the article, her website is likely to be of some interest to readers, and that, based on perusal of the website, Future Generations doesn't seem to fit the list of links to be avoided. I personally find external references very useful when I read through an article, and I think it would be better to add more links, if they can be found. Harkenbane (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very simply, the website qualifies as either a personal website, or a self-published work, and is in the list of types of links to be avoided as external links. You will see that the article on Marian Van Court itself may not meet notability guidelines, as well.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of external links is to provide some links to websites with content relating to the article. Neither of the pages Ramdrake removed was a 'personal website', and self-published work isn't on the list of sites to exclude from external links.

Keep in mind that links on Wikipedia aren't used by Google, in case you have some strange ulterior motive for removing the links. --Zero g (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As per [[WP:EL]: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:...

11-Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Now please prove to me that the Personal eugenics site of Marian Van Court isn't a personal website. The second one, dygenics or eugenics, fall under the same criterion, except maybe that it looks even more like a personal webpage.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, I have a few things to note. Firstly, Zero g, I encourage you to assume good faith on the part of other wikipedians; this discussion page is cluttered with arguments which really didn't move the article forward. Secondly, Ramdrake, I did see that Van Court's Wikipedia entry doesn't meet inclusion guidelines, as you'll notice if you check the discussion page under Marian Van Court. I let Siegmund's edits adding information on Lynn & Van Court stay in the article on dysgenics in the interests of diplomacy, not because I thought they were really relevant, but, it stands to reason that if readers really do care enough about Van Court that they want to know she published in white nationalist magazines, they probably care enough to read other work she's written to decide whether she's credible. In any event, while Van Court's website is her own, if you check you'll see that some of the material there was published in academic journals, and I think she probably is an established authority on dysgenesis because of that.

So, why don't we simply restore the url until we can find better external links to include? Harkenbane (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply because that would be against WP policy on external links, unless there is a consensus of the editors here to ignore all rules. Or, we could put Van Court's site back in waiting for better links, but I would very strongly oppose the inclusion of the other link, which reads like an online personal journal. At least Van Court's site carries copies of some peer-reviewed material.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be against WP policy on external links, because, once again, Marian van Court has published in academic journals on the subject, which identifies her as a recognized authority. But I'll tell you what: I'm going to see about finding some more links, and if any of them seem appreciably better than Future Generations, we can leave that one out. Harkenbane (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with linking to Van Court's web site. I find no indication of peer review or an editorial board for the Van Court web site. Since she has written for "a magazine that espouses white nationalism" (according to a reliable source), her objectivity is impugned. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd be correct, however, the point of most discussions isn't as much to move the article forward, but to move it backward. --Zero g (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I did four google searches on dysgenics/dysgenesis paired with IQ/intelligence, and all I found were pages in Van Court's site, online discussions, a few journal articles which mentioned the topic only in passing, and reviews of Lynn's work. It would be nice if there were more serious attention paid to dysgenics outside of scientific journals (which most people can't access), but in building an external references section, we have to work with what's available. Harkenbane (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem, someone had listed the site mentioning it as a 'personal website'. The website however doesn't meet the classifications of a personal website. Neither does the other link you consistently remove, which contains a sourced article, and is hosted on a website that hosts a variety of material from various authors.

I changed the description of the link which will hopefully settle this matter. --Zero g (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Partial Point By Point Analysis of Article

1) Due consideration should be given to the overall impact that both genotypic IQ variation and phenotypic IQ variation have. This is not made clear within the introduction. Though the introduction contains links to phenotypic and genotypic - are there articles that specifically deal with phenotypic IQ and genotypic IQ. These particular notions require at least brief explanation within the introduction for the rest of the article for successful understanding of the article on the part of a lay reader.

2)"Some of the first studies into the subject were carried out on individuals living before the advent of IQ testing, in the late 19th century; researchers checked for dysgenic trends by looking at the fertility of men listed in WHO's WHO, these individuals being presumably of high intelligence {{dubious}}. These men, taken as a whole, had few children, implying the existence of a dysgenic trend. " > It is dubious to extrapolate from a small (potentially misrepresentative population) to a large population. Mentioning the research of the late 19th century most probably serves to undermine the credibility of the article as a whole (even if the assertion that the individuals within the WHO's WHO listing did have high IQs AND had low fertility rates, this states potentially nothing about the population as a whole). Nevertheless, common sense dictates that extrapolating from a small population size in the way that this statement refers to is quite nonsensicla and certainly DUBIOUS. > I plan to take liberties by adding a {{dubious}} mark to the 2 consecutive sentences referred to here.

3) "these reproductive trends have led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations" - this is a dubious phrasing of some vague intention which the contributor wished to make clear. Does the contributor believe that intelligence will cease to exist at some point in the future? Or, rather, that the planet will cease to be habitable (the only condition, I would assume, under which it would cease to be capable of supporting intelligent life). Perhaps the mechanism via which intelligence is jeopardised by the referred to reproductive trends should be outlined?

4) "Regardless of the methodology employed, later research has generally supported that of Vining {{dubious}}."

I have serious reservations concerning this assertion. One should not make sweeping generalisations about what a whole field of research is likely to show or present in regards to supporting the findings of one researcher (as stated within the main article). In particular, it is extremely doubtful that EVERY single assertion made witin Vining's publications is univerally agreed upon within the field of psychometrics - hence bringing the validity and encyclopedic nature of the whole of this sentence into account (though the quoted phrase does not assert that EVERY assertion is support - only "generally", whatever that means).

Even within physics, for example, one would be hard pressed to say that "Regardless of the methodology employed, later research has generally supported that of Newton's...". Clearly, if even as (ideally) apolitical subject as physics does not lend to researchers whose work is generally supportive of the work of other researcher as indicated by the sense of this quote, then it is seen that such a statement made in relation to a psychometric area as controversial as this area can not possibly be held to be encyclopedic or common sensical without further justification.

In particular, the sense within which "later research has generally supported that of Vining" should be delineated to the reader. Which PARTICULAR research observations/assertions/outcomes made by Vining have been supported - and in what way have they been supported?

5) "Conversely, while desired family size is apparently the same for women of all IQ levels,[26] highly educated women are found to be more likely to say that they desire more children than they have, indicating a "deficit fertility" in the highly intelligent.[27]"

This sentence seems dubious in the sense that it is highly subjective to state that those who are highly intelligent have a "deficity fertility" merely because they would like more children than the less intelligent, but have not gone about obtaining the same number of children. It would be far better for the article to stick to quantitative analysis (ie: the actual numbers of children that the highly intelligent have), rather than what the highly intelligent would WANT to have in terms of numbers of progeny.

To repeat, the number of children that the highly intelligent would like to have is irrelevant - it is the number that they have in totality.

6) {{Geographical imbalance}} I have added the Geographical imbalance tag as this article seems to emphasise and focus upon the US without providing citations which relate to, say, the UK or other parts of the world to the same (or, indeed, any) extent as that provided for the US. This makes the article highly biased in that it focuses upon the US to the exclusion of other countries in relation to issues which concern family planning, etc...

7) "In her review of reproductive trends in the United States, Van Court argues that "each factor - from initially employing some form of contraception, to successful implementation of the method, to termination of an accidental pregnancy when it occurs - involves selection against intelligence." This assertion may be fair and well - but it is highly misleading for quantification of the degree of selection to be given in one case (for contraception), where : "Among a sample of women using a reliable form of birth control, success rates were related to IQ, with the percentages of high, medium and low IQ women having unwanted births during a three-year interval being 3%, 8% and 11%, respectively" but NOT for the other cases. Further, given the assertion that there is "selection against intelligence", it is necessary to outline an OVERALL DEGREE OF SELECTION AGAINST INTELLIGENCE. Stating that there is selection against intelligence at every stage is dubious as it does not provide a quantitative assertion concerning the DEGREE to which that selection occurs COLLECTIVELY for ALL the stages.

8) "There is a strong tendency for countries with lower national IQ scores to have higher fertility rates and for countries with higher national IQ scores to have lower fertility rates.{{dubious}}" Here, again, there is no attempt to quantify the extent to which this would have an effect on IQ on a generation by generation level. There should be. There is no article which deals with how "national IQ scores" are calculate for the very many different countries/cultures to which this statement refers. The scientific publications in relation to the phenomenon of the article have already been stated by myself to deal primarily with the US and not to the same degree with other countries. Thus, to assert that "there is a strong tendency" seems very subjective and dubious as no attempt is made to quantify what a "strong tendency" is.

9) Given the above criticisms, I recommend that the {{unbalanced}} tag be added to the article as the article does not seem to do as thorough a job as it should do given the nature of the topic matter it seeks to address. Could, perhaps, someone else do this?

10) "Robert K. Graham in 1998 argued that genocide and class warfare, in cases ranging from the French Revolution to the present, have had a dysgenic effect through the killing of the more intelligent by the less intelligent, and "might well incline humanity toward a more primitive, more brutish level of evolutionary achievement.{{dubious}}" Clearly extremely dubious - it has little bearing on the scientific basis that the rest of the article seems to want to build upon. However, that doesn't mean I would like this sentence removed or modified (as in the other cases). It is sufficient to leave it as it is.

11) DOES INTELLIGENCE PROVIDE A SURVIVAL AND PROCREATION ADVANTAGE? : This would seem to be an important point which is not touched upon by the article. Surely, if intelligence is as useful and desirable (say, even in preference to physical beauty or attractiveness), then why does an article on dysgenics have to exist at all? Surely intelligence would be sufficiently self-selecting (or provide a sufficient survival/selective advantage) as to overcome any effects which select against intelligence? Perhaps the article could touch upon forms of political and social organisation which select against intelligence (surely, capitalism would not select against IQ - would it?). The article should touch upon the statistical difficulties inherent in any attempt to discriminate between genotypic and phenotypic intelligence within studies, and how it is a VERY REAL POSSIBILITY AND PROBABILITY that a significant number of published research studies could be erroneous in the manner in which they attempt to provide an objective basis for such a discrimination. At any rate, even if every relevant publication in academia DID perfectly distinguist between genotypic and phenotypic intelligence - it would be useful background to the reader to appreciate such nuances. Mrsadriankaur (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the geographical imbalance and unbalanced tags. I agree that the criticisms of Mrsadriankaur have merit and should be addressed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and think the argumentation for most of the content of the article is good enough, though I guess the wording could be altered in some cases for NPOV.

Welfare, health care, and birth control, are often used as examples of causative agents for dysgenics, I'm not sure of any reliable sources that point this out however.

I assume the general hypothesis is that 1st world nations will become 2nd world nations, and subsequently 3rd world nations as intelligence drops. Perhaps IQ and the wealth of nations can be used as a source. --Zero g (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If no reliable sources point this out, then it cannot go into the article, as per WP rules. Also, IQ and the Wealth of Nations isn't itself a reliable source, as per WP policy. However, the constant rise of IQ test results (a.k.a. Flynn effect) would tend to contradict any claim of a dysgenic effect in the population at large; but you already knew that.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why IQ and the Wealth of Nations couldn't be used as a source. Next, you ought to know that the Flynn effect is mainly caused by rises in the lower ends of the distribution, which doesn't contradict the dysgenic hypothesis. --Zero g (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IQatWoN a questionable source as per WP:RS. Second, the Flynn Effect impacts has raised the average of the entire curve, ever since the beginnings of IQ testing. That the average intelligence is actually rising instead of falling falsifies the dysgenic hypothesis, pure and simple.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't have time to address this before, but I don't think it is at all "pure and simple." Yes, some do believe that the Flynn Effect falsifies the dysgenic trend, but others argue that it is merely masking a small genetic effect with a large environmental one. Findings that IQ has stopped increasing in some (mostly Anglophone & Scandinavian) nations are very interesting here! At this point, they may of course be anomalies, but what would it mean if they were replicated? Harkenbane (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The data do not agree with your hypothesis, so you explain it away. I think that section has to be rewritten to make it NPOV. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics is not a generational decline to IQ, but rather a decline to genotypic IQ. I don't believe that a phenotypic increase to IQ is at all relevant to the question of whether dysgenics is occurring - I merely admit that some people do, and that, for this reason, it deserves to be in the article. Harkenbane (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mrsadriankaur, thank you for such a through analysis! I would like to respond as follows.

1. Agreed; the distinction between genotypic and phenotypic IQ is very important to the article.

2. Don't quite agree. In principle I do see your point, but the WHO's WHO study is clearly placed in the "early research" section, and it is immediately followed by "But more rigorous studies..." indicating that the study is not presented as offering meaningful results. Do you think readers will have trouble realizing that the WHO's WHO study is a dubious source of information based on the way it is presented?

3. Disagree. The statement "these reproductive trends have led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations" is factual (just look at the amount of research produced) and such statements are quite common in wikipedia articles - see for example "Since organisms and ecosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH, this raises extinction concerns, directly driven by increased atmospheric CO2..." in global warming. (If it helps to clarify, intelligence is not binary - if it is declining, that does not mean it will somehow "cease to exist".) Can you think of a better phrasing that you would prefer?

4. Disagree. Later research has generally supported Newton's work. I can agree that it would be more helpful to clarify that Vining's observations of A) a dysgenic trend which is B) stronger in the African American population were specifically what has been replicated. And, I also can agree that the world "general" is unhelpful, but only because it obscures the strength and consistency of the finding of a post WW2 dysgenic trend! If you can find a single study (even one!) on the subject which has failed to find an inverse relationship between IQ and fertility or achieved education and fertility within the United States since 1950, my hat will go off to you.

5. Agree somewhat. The so-called "deficit fertility" of high-IQ women is of interest, but probably doesn't belong in the scientific section.

6. Agree. I will add what information there is outside the U.S. (mostly for some European countries and Japan). Remember, however, that the reason the article is centered on the U.S. is simply because "much of the research into intelligence and fertility has been sadly restricted to individuals within a single nation (most of them living within the United States)."

7. Agree, but simply removing the concluding statement addresses the issue.

8. Disagree. A statistically "strong" correlation is simply one where r > .5; there is nothing dubious about reporting the existence of a trend which appears in a dataset.

9. No contest. I don't share your apparent view regarding the seriousness of the concerns you raise, but, because addressing them will improve the article in some cases, it doesn't hurt anything at this stage to leave the tag(s) for now.

10. Agree. Graham's claims are sensationalistic, but they're in the history section.

11. This is really a multiple question.

11a. You asked whether intelligence provides a fitness advantage, but fitness is not absolute; it exists with respect to the environment. Right now, for human beings living in Western nations that have been studied, intelligence provides a fitness disadvantage. To ask whether intelligence offers a reproductive advantage in an absolute sense is not really meaningful.

11b. "Perhaps the article could touch upon forms of political and social organisation which select against intelligence (surely, capitalism would not select against IQ - would it?)." Ah, but I thought you didn't want to stray into realms which were dubious! Any explanations for this are speculative. I could easily provide some, but they aren't nearly as solid as the research showing the existence of dysgenesis.

11c. "The article should touch upon the statistical difficulties inherent in any attempt to discriminate between genotypic and phenotypic intelligence within studies" Maybe the article should touch on the fact that no such difficulties exist. Evolution changes genotypes by affecting phenotypes.

11d. "VERY REAL POSSIBILITY AND PROBABILITY that a significant number of published research studies could be erroneous" As all studies achieved the standard p-values below .05, the most real aspect of this possibility is how very small it is.

--Harkenbane (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Physiological Limits on Human Intelligence

It would perhaps be worthwhile for the article to mention that there would seem to be physiological limits placed upon human information processing and intelligence (and, at any rate, the laws of physics place such limits - though far in excess of human capabilities). This provides an indication of the degree to which Homo Sapiens has "reached peak-IQ" (sorry) - and how even the most ardent application of state Eugenics would probably fail to improve human living conditions one iota.

Mrsadriankaur (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Research doesn't indicate this. From the eugenics article "Small differences in average IQ at the group level might theoretically have large effects on social outcomes. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray altered the mean IQ (100) of the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth's population sample by randomly deleting individuals below an IQ of 103 until the population mean reached 103. This calculation was conducted twice and averaged together to avoid error from the random selection. This test showed that the new group with an average IQ of 103 had a poverty rate 25% lower than a group with an average IQ of 100. Similar substantial correlations in high school drop-out rates, crime rates, and other outcomes were measured."

This discussion should take place in the eugenics article however. --Zero g (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Individuals with gifted-level IQs (130+) are clearly capable of more than individuals with retarded level IQs (70-), and the majority of this difference is known to be mediated by genetics. Perhaps some Homo sapiens have reached peak intelligence, but this is not true for the entire species (sorry). Harkenbane (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lynn criticism

Harkenbane removed the following content with the edit summary, "removed excessive critiques of Richard Lynn".[1] Since he is a major source for the article, I think it is important to report a serious allegation regarding his source of funding that may have affected the objectivity of his research. This does not duplicate Kamin's criticism since Kamin does not discuss his funding source. I have restored this content along with its source. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Lynn (along with William Shockley) is a major recipient of grants from the Pioneer Fund. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights advocacy organization, has characterized the Pioneer Fund as a hate group.

Richard Lynn is not even remotely a "major source" for the article; he is mentioned because of a single study he co-authored which replicated another researcher's work. Further, any criticisms you may have of him are only really relevant insofar as they deal with his research in the area of dysgenics. Thus, although some mention of Richard Lynn's controversial status is warranted, your interest in Lynn is not helping to improve this article, Wsiegmund. Harkenbane (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid comments like "your interest in Lynn is not helping to improve this article". May I remind you of the previsions of WP:OWN, to wit, "working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors"? I rewrote the quotation above to mention Vining, as well. I think it is relevant if it only mentioned Lynn, however, since it is a serious allegation regarding his source of funding that may have affected the objectivity of his research. Now it casts doubt on that of the Vining, as well. Shockley did no research. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wsiegmund, there is a difference between attacking research, and attacking people - that's why your interest in Lynn really isn't helping to improve this article. If you wished to add all of the information you have on Richard Lynn to the article on Richard Lynn, that might be of benefit to Wikiedia. But entensive paragraphs on Lynn (or anyone else) simply do not belong in this article. If you have any scientific studies to contribute to the article, or any reviews of the studies given in the article, please add them! Harkenbane (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Material that casts doubt on the quality of the "scientific studies" of Lynn, Vining and van Court provides a bit of balance to content that is well outside the mainstream of scientific thought, in my opinion. If you can provide a reference from the journals Science or Nature to show otherwise, you might have an argument. It appears to me that much of the article content is based on "research" that is politically and/or ideologically motivated. Allegations to that effect, if they satisfy WP:RS, clearly belong in the article.

The fertility content is WP:OR, in my opinion. Other editors should not be required to evaluate correlation coefficients to determine if content is accurate. If the studies on fertility that you cite are linked to the article topic in the way that is alleged, you should be able to supply reliable sources to that effect. Otherwise, that content must be removed per the policy cited. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Marian Van Court

The article on Richard Lynn's coauthor Marian Van Court has been proposed for deletion. -- if anyone objects, please remove the PROD tag and take it to AfD. I do not object, since it seems to me she is of no particular significance in this work. DGG (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(As I've noted on that page, I also have no objections; feel free to delete the article Marian Van Court. Harkenbane (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC) )

Why intelligence?

Why does this article focus on intelligence? Genetic deterioration may occur in all inherited traits, and it seems stupid to focus on one feature that cannot even be measured properly. Better focus on back problems, diabetes, short-sightedness, cancer, autism and what have you (Category:Genetic disorders) instead of "intelligence". dab (𒁳) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the researchers! Most scientists are narrowly interested in seeing whether IQ is rising or falling. I actually do know of a study examining a dysgenic trend with respect to obesity - since obesity has a heritability of approximately .4 if memory serves, and weight is positively correlated with fertility, this trait can be expected to increase. However, that was only one study. Does anyone else know of some information on other traits besides IQ/education? Harkenbane (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One further point: should the term "intelligence" be used? I'm changing necessary references to "IQ," which is what was being measured; many researchers have problems with the idea of IQ actually being a measure of intelligence. Does anyone have a problem with this? Harkenbane (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream scientists have little interest in genetic deterioration of intelligence for the reasons you suggest. As a result, the only literature is that of a small group who publish in journals like Intelligence (journal) and Mankind Quarterly. They may be peer reviewed, but it seems to be a rather small and isolated of like-minded individuals. Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton are on the editorial boards of both journals and both Lynn and Rushton have received funding from the Pioneer Fund, a hate group, according to the SPLC.[2] The much-criticized The Bell Curve made use of this literature. The current article content is largely the work of Harkenbane (talk · contribs) and Zero g (talk · contribs). The former has been pushing Lynn and Van Court since 2005,[3], as well as Rushton, a little later.[4][5] Both editors have shown themselves to be civil, but persistent, POV pushers, who revert the deletion of dubious content and remove criticisms of this same content with the argument that those criticisms belong elsewhere or are too extensive. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote this, Wsiegmund: "However, content from reliable sources, especially Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) listed journal articles, is welcome." So please tell us, is such content welcome, or is it not welcome? If not, then why not - has Wikipedia become a place where science published in recognized journals like Intelligence is supposed to take a backseat to unsubstantiated opinion? But if such content is welcome, why do you insist on distracting readers from research published in peer reviewed journals with information gathered from the Southern Povery Law center, founded as "as small civil rights law firm" which displays a "hate map" on its main page? Wsiegmund, I'd like you to think carefully about who here is really a "polite POV pusher." Harkenbane (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the point is, specifically the journal Intelligence has on its board of editors several researchers of the small, fringy movance that Wsiegmund is talking about, especially JP Rushton at its head. Therefore, it is rather unsurprising that it is the single largest publisher of Rushton's papers. That could be described as a conflict of interest to start with. At the very least, it casts doubt on the impartiality of the review board. If you want other sources that hold Rushton and the Pioneer Fund grantees in the same regard, see here: "The Pioneer Fund is infamous not only for its funding of classic eugenics research in the pre-World War II era, but also for continued funding of opposition to civil rights and racist science. The current Pioneer director is University of Western Ontario psychologist J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton is best known for his advocacy of a theory correlating genital size inversely with intelligence and morality and parsing this by race."--Ramdrake (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your point. However: A) Rushton wasn't at the top of Intelligence 25 years ago, was he? B) Rushton being at its head doesn't exactly disprove findings published there - it's still listed in http://scientific.thomson.com/mjl/ - and, most importantly, C) Intelligence is just one of many journals cited. Look at the references given for "recent research;" ignoring the Southern Poverty Law Center and various reviews on Lynn, I see Psychological Bulletin, Social Biology(4x), Intelligence(3x), American Psychologist, U.S. Bureau of the Census., American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Harkenbane (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to list the references that mention "dysgenics", please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question dab, it's about "intelligence" because only racists/right wing nutcases believe this claptrap. It can only be credible to someone with only the briefest acquaintance with selection. For example the opening sentence of the article sums up the complete lack of knowledge about selection of people who believe this claptrap: "dysgenics is a term describing the progressive evolutionary "weakening" or genetic deterioration of a population of organisms relative to their environment, often due to relaxation of natural selection" Well I'm no expert in natural selection but it seems obvious to me that if the environment no longer selects for a trait, then by definition that trait is no longer advantageous within that environment, therefore the species cannot be weakened relative to it's environment. Or to put it another way, if the trait gives no selective advantage, then lack of the trait cannot be said to weaken the species. Surely that's common sense. As for it being a term in population genetics, well my copy of "Population Genetics: A Concise Guide" by John H. Gillespie doesn't mention dysgenics a single time. I wonder how many real population geneticists (rather than people with a right wing biological deterministic political axe to grind) really consider it a valid concept any more? Not many I'd wager. Google of dysgenics with "population genetics" Alun (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. The History and Geography of Human Genes, a reference cited by population genetics, includes no mention of dysgenics in the index, nor are works authored by Vining, Lynn, or Van Court referenced (Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza: The History and Geography of Human Genes: (Abridged paperback edition) Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691029059). Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We've gone over this before over a year ago. Put the article up for deletion if you want, but simply talking about it isn't going to make the article disappear. --Zero g (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's not a question of putting the article up for deletion, it's a question of accurately describing what the article is supposed to be about. There are some unsupported statements in the lead, especially that dysgenics is a population genetics term and that it is the study of populations that are maladapted due to natural selection. This second is contradicted by the statement that dysgenics is the antonym of eugenics. Clearly eugenics is "The scientific study of artificial selection towards a particular set of desired characteristics."[6] so it's got nothing to do with natural selection. Likewise dysgenic "[A] system of breeding or selection that is genetically deleterious or disadvantageous."[7] So presumably dysgenics is the scientific study of this form of artificial selection. The point is this, both eugenic and dysgenic practices are forms of artificial selection, on the one hand the artificial selection is done in order to promote traits perceived as advantageous, on the other the selection is done to promote traits perceived as disadvantageous, this is what makes them antonyms, but neither is concerned with natural selection. Indeed natural selection could never produce an animal that was maladapted for the environment to which it evolved, but it can produce an animal that is maladapted for a different environment, the obvious example in humans is sickle-cell disease, a homozygous lethal mutation of the haemoglobin gene, it is rapidly lost in regions there malaria is not present, but it does provide an adaptive advantage to heterozygous individuals in malarial regions. On the other hand traits that are perceived as advantageous by a breeder may not have any selective advantage in a natural environment, and could be perceived as both eugenic and dysgenic, think of a pug for example, the very traits that are selected for due to their desirability to the dog breeder are the ones that make this animal a particularly unhealthy specimen, prone to breathing and eye problems, pugs are both eugenic and dysgenic for the same traits. Alun (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosquitoes can become better at harvesting humans for blood while mankind as a species doesn't evolve. In that scenario the human species weakens relative to its environment. In the case of intelligence, low intelligence gives a reproductive advantage, but people with a low intelligence die (on average) at an earlier age, so that could be used as one of many arguments that low intelligence weakens humans relative to their environment. --Zero g (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The first one isn't dysgenics: it's a result of competition. Also, please supply references that low intelligence gives a reproductive advantage. First news I have. From what I know of evolution in humans, high intelligence is what gave humans a reproductive advantage and allowed them to survive. Lastly, you cannot build a WP article based on what you think exists and use arguments to prop up your position. You must research the subject and then write about the significant positions around it. However, writing about a fringe subject in science as if it were mainstream doesn't help the reader.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several references in the article to studies that show people with low intelligence have more children, hence they have a reproductive advantage, for whatever reason. Did you actually read the article? --Zero g (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. While there may be a correlation between fertility and low IQ scores (and most serious researchers will dispute that), it is wrong to assume a causal link, i.e. that low intelligence confers any kind of reproductive advantage. Human history has proven just the contrary. Please don't take your assumptions for facts.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you reference your claim that most 'serious' researchers would dispute it? It would make an interesting addition to the article. And if it's wrong to assume a casual link then I guess it's wrong to assume the obvious. I was also referring to modern society, not the stone age. --Zero g (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Link disputed here, here, this paper actually explains why, even if people with lower IQ were to have higher fertility, it wouldn't influence overall world population IQ. The actual causal link isn't that lower intelligence people have a higher fertility rate, it's that higher education (correlated with higher IQ) causes a stronger restriction on fertility rates (for the most part through birth control methods). So, you have it backwards.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, what is backwards about this? I'm really interested, here - not only have I not seen these (exact) articles before, but I don't follow your conclusion. As I understand it, if any trait is heritable, and that trait is related to (surviving) offspring, then the level of that trait must change throughout the population over time - this is straightforward evolution. I'm reading through the articles right now, but I'm very interested to see you clarify yourself on this. Harkenbane (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you must conclude that some trait is dysgenic, then you would need to conclude that it is high intelligence which is dysgenic, as people with high intelligence have a lower reproductive rate (due in part to greater use of contraceptive methods). You posit that low-IQ people have a higher fertility rate; scientists find that it is higher-IQ people which have a lower fertility rate. Therefore, the argument is backwards. Furthermore, one of the references I provided actually demonstrates that even with differing fertility rates, there is no net impact on the average IQ of the population. In other words and with all due respect, this whole concept is just bad science, possibly advanced (by those few scientists who advance it) to further a poligtical or ideological agenda.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, there's no such thing as a dysgenic "trait" in the context of dysgenic science. A reproductive trend may be viewed as dysgenic because it alters the distribution of one or more traits, even though it is quite obvious that which traits are of value is subjective; no one disputes this. And to say that high IQ is a trait which reduces reproductive fitness is exactly the same as saying that low IQ is a trait that enhances reproductive fitness. Do you see something backwards about saying that the glass is half full instead of half empty?

Even more, while I'm favorably impressed that you were able to find evidence that there are researchers who don't think a negative correlation between IQ and fertility means there must be a dysgenic trend, and I strongly urge you to incorporate these claims into the article if you haven't done so already, the article you provided on "How Intelligence Affects Fertility" is actually friendly to the dysgenic hypothesis, as the authors, Retherford and Sewell, write: "in modern societies, the direction of effect of education on family size may predict the direction of evolution of genotypic IQ. Further research is needed to test the generability of our findings" and reiterate, "the direction of effect of education on fertility may furnish a plausible basis for predicting the direction of evolution of genotypic IQ, but firmer conclusions must await further research..." That education provides the link between IQ and fertility doesn't cause that link to vanish. Instead, their research provides a causative explanation for the dysgenic trend! So while I encourage you to continue the discussion, I don't see that you understand this topic very well.Harkenbane (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is a definite logical difference between the two situations: one means that higher-IQ (or highly-educated) people actually have a lower fertility rate, and that less highly-educated people have a normal fertility rate. That isn't equivalent to highly-educated people having a normal fertility rate and less highly-educated people having a higher fertility rate. There is no reproductive advantage to having a lower education. However, this fails to take into account several issues:

• Children of highly-educated people tend to live longer than those not so highly-educated. Thus the survival rate is higher for them, and any possible impact to average IQ is mitigated.
• The IQs of children of both low-IQ and high-IQ parents tend to regress towards the mean, therefore negating even more any dysgenic trend.

Overall, contrary to what you seem to think, the article you quoted isn't friendly towards the dysgenic hypothesis, it is being strictly neutral. The point is, the dysgenic hypothesis is WP:FRINGE science, and this article should reflect that fact.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No Ramdrake, the article is not neutral. Did you read it? Although their phrasing is of course conservative, the study authors conclude that the relationship between fertility and education shows how genotypic IQ is evolving, and they are explicit in saying that the purpose of the study was to describe and explain this trend. Look:

(In our previous study) it was estimated, using a simple genetic model, that the generational change in mean genotypic IQ for the complete cohort and its offspring was about one-third of an IQ point decline in a generation. By genotypic IQ is meant the expected value of measured 1Q for an individual of a given gene configuration, or genotype, under the hypothetical assumption that the individual was raised in the average environment obtaining in the population. Although our earlier paper examined the direction and magnitude of effect of IQ on family size, it did not address the questions of (1) why this effect is negative and (2) why it is considerably more negative for women than for men. These questions are addressed in this paper.

Regarding your other points, the effect of regression to the mean is routinely accounted for in the literature - I realize that you might rather not take my word for it, but you ought to read the literature for yourself before assuming that it isn't! And greater longevity in children of the highly educated doesn't impact the dysgenic trend - when they die, they are not replaced. Again, these kinds of objections are creative and may seem feasible from the standpoint of someone who isn't familiar with the issue, but I still don't think you understand dysgenics, and I wish you would take your lack of familiarity with the subject into account when making edits - I've provided a more than ten scientific articles showing that there really is a dysgenic trend, and while you might not like two or three of them for various reasons, the research showing a dysgenic trend is still quite strong compared to the two scientific articles you've provided against it, since the Preston & Campbell article simply proposes a model whereby dysgenics might not be occurring, and Lam's article offers nothing more than a positive review of Preston & Campbell!

Looking over your personal page, I'm guessing that you are able to write computer programs; is this correct? I've written code exploring how traits are affected by natural selection, and I can vouch for the fact that it isn't difficult or time consuming if you're a seasoned programmer. I really think you would benefit from playing around with population models - try coding in a population of, say, 10,000 organisms with only a single trait varying on a gaussian distribution made up of heritabile and nonheritable sources, and include differential lifetime fertility, regression to the mean, differential longevity rates, a good dose of randomness, and anything else you're interested in. Doing this will allow you to see for yourself how traits evolve - if you reduce the heritability to zero, evolution won't occur; likewise if you constrain the population to constantly regress to the same mean, evolution will never occur far above or below this mean regardless of heritability or the strength of differential fertility (and this corresponds to the model used by Preston & Campbell). But, so long as heritability is anything greater than zero, fertility isn't the same at all levels of the trait, and regression is coded to the current population mean rather than to a fixed mean, it won't matter who lives longer, or whether the total fertility rate causes positive or negative population growth; evolution will occur. Doing this wouldn't prove genotypic IQ is falling, but I do think you'd have a better understanding of the issue if you gave it a try. Harkenbane (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful links. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The first link doesn't seem to be of much use unless you pay 14$ to read what it's about. The second link argues that education, not IQ, causes the decline in fertility. There are however studies that show that education has little influence on IQ upon adulthood, which indicates that educational achievement can be used as an IQ score. The third link explains why regression toward the mean doesn't lower the average IQ, but it doesn't provide an adequate answer to differential fertility rates. That's my opinion however, and I guess you could add this information to the article. --Zero g (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point: the causal link seems to be from higher education to lower fertility (through enhanced use of contraception methods). Therefore, there is no reproductive advantage for low-IQ people, just a reproductive disadvantage to high-education (and presumably high-IQ) people. Second, if you re-read the third reference, it explains why differential fertility rates between high-IQ people and low-IQ people does not lead to a deterioration of overall average IQ. It's in fact mainstream science disproving the dysgenic hypothesis.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but I haven't seen the proof that education has a higher negative correlation to fertility than IQ. And even then it doesn't disprove the hypothesis as you've indicated yourself. I also disagree with the conclusion of the 3rd reference, but if you can show their statistical research in the article that'd be awesome. Also, none of the authors seem to be notable scientists, so I don't see how it can be mainstream science. --Zero g (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of the papers are published in the American Journal of Sociology, so they should be mainstream enough. The other is published in Intelligence, and maybe you have a point that Intelligence isn't as prominent a mainstream journal :) . Next, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions of a paper is irrelevant: the article should contain notable opinions on the subject; your personal opinions don't count. And one of the paper I supplied makes the precise point that fertility is negatively correlate with higher education. But the point of all this was to point out that it is erroneous to state (as you did) that low intelligence confers a reproductive advantage. That is pure nonsense.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I hope you can add some interesting information to the article, and hopefully not the usual political correct theorizing that is popular nowadays. --Zero g (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the following quotation from the first paper that you cite above indicates that differential fertility does not lead to a decline in intelligence if intergenerational mobility across groups exists, which it certainly does. According to Figure 3, a change in differential fertility may cause a change in intelligence, but only a small change assuming endogamous mating and a negligible change under the assumption of random mating. After two or three generations, no further changes would be expected to occur. I think that this makes the content that I earlier identified as WP:OR and attempted to remove, not relevant to the article topic.[8] I quote at length for the benefit of one of our editors who is not able to access this journal. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"The expectation that fertility differentials would lead to a decline in intelligence scores appears largely to be based upon a fallacious analogy to closed subpopulations. We have shown that, once mobility between parent and child scores is admitted into a simple model of IQ inheritance, equilibria are established in the populations' IQ distribution even with persistent fertility differentials."

"As intuition suggests, the equilibrium distribution of IQ will be affected by differential fertility. We have shown that fertility differentials favoring low IQ groups will generally produce a lower equilibrium mean IQ than fertility differentials favoring high IQ. The differences are not large empirically and appear to be smaller when intermarriage between IQ classes is more frequent and when the variance introduced into the IQ inheritance matrix is greater."

You are welcome to examine my more than 5000 edits on en.wikipedia, 14% of which are to article talk pages and 2% of which are to Dysgenics, Eugenics, Race and intelligence, and Heritability of IQ and their respective talk pages.[9] I don't think these numbers suggest a pattern of either POV-pushing, nor tendentious editing. Those for Harkenbane and Zero g do, in my opinion.[10][11] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This article does not seem to be about dysgenics at all (the study of selection for perceived disadvantageous traits), it seems to be about the belief that was rife during the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century amongst certain sections of society that higher birth rates amongst an arbitrarily constructed "socially undesirable" sections of society was damaging to society as a whole (unsurprisingly it was the section of society these eugenicists belonged to that was seen as desirable), and the fact that although this Victorian/Edwardian era belief has been abandoned by serious biologists and scientists, a few radical right wing biological determinists still cling tenaciously to this belief. Of course it is political, the fundamental point of these right wing biological determinists is that they believe that modern societies that provide, for example, social security and universal health care, are damaging to the population as a whole, it's little more than an appeal to primitivism. But of course it presupposes that birth rates amongst people with a high IQ has in the past been higher than for those with low IQ, a spurious notion, for one thing it is not birth rates that are important, but survival rates, if a higher proportion of the children of "intelligent" people survive to reproduce, then birthrates become unimportant. Indeed humans live in a social environment, it is social norms that determine which individuals are more reproductively successful and not natural selection, there is no evidence as far as I can see that any single social/cultural environment has in the past encouraged "intelligent" people to reproduce at higher rates than the less intelligent. In fact it is probably true that the very cleverest have always had less children, but have also invested more in those children that they have had. Of course having less children makes people much wealthier, children are a huge drain on resources, so we would expect those people with less children to be wealthier and have more opportunities for social advancement anyway. Since reading this claptrap I have been thinking about the social norms of late antiquity to the middle ages in Europe, during this 1,000 or so year period the very cleverest men and women tended to become monks or nuns, effectively removing them from the reproductive population, it's akin to sterilising every clever boy or girl before they reproduce. Indeed during this time it was the aristocracy that had the real reproductive advantages, but they tended not to be very bright but were very bloodthirsty, if human nature were as biologically deterministic as these right wing people claim, then Europe would have a huge proportion of rather stupid but very violent hooligans, actually looking at European history there might be something in that. But of course immediately after this thousand year period of extreme "dysgenic" activity Europe enjoyed a huge blossoming of cultural and scientific creativity with the renaisance and the enlightenment, hardly what one would expect from a population that had been purged of it's "clever" genes while it's "aggressive" genes had been selected for. My personal opinion is that this article serves no purpose in and of itself, it is so closely tied to the eugenics article that the best thing to do would be to redirect it to the eugenics article, as it is it merely reproduces much of that article anyway. Alun (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that; there's far too much political rhetoric being tossed around here. The whole question of diminishing intelligence is a moot one--IQ tests generally only measure culturally (or sub-culturally) pertinent information anyway; which is why non-Westerners and the uneducated have historically scored lower than better educated, typically White, North Americans and Europeans. This problem was addressed when psychologists changed IQ tests to accommodate people of different social backgrounds. The problem is far from solved, but the point is, measurements of IQ and estimations of intelligence will vary from culture to culture and time to time, so any question of a dysgenic trend in general intelligence is almost totally meaningless--unless you have a particular social agenda.--Pariah (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The trends measured have been within cultural boundaries so cultural and racial differences do not play a role. Regardless, these kind of discussions/speeches are counter productive because everyone happens to have a social agenda, also, you don't seem to be up to date about the scientific consensus when it comes to IQ tests. --Zero g (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a questionable claim--cultural boundaries are ephemeral. People might be ostensibly within the same definition of culture (e.g. "American" or "British"), but it's very difficult to see how an inner-city kid, a kid living on a farm, and a kid going to private school would all perform identically on an IQ test with culturally relevant questions. The concept of intelligence is also ephemeral and far from there being a scientific consensus, has always been debated in scientific circles. But let's say there is a consensus, and everybody uses a Weschler-style measure of things like short-term memory or visual reasoning, it's still debatable whether these skills necessarily have survival value. They do in the modern world, but only because the modern world values them. 100,000 years ago, verbal reasoning was probably mostly irrelevant, and 100,000 years in the future, we have no idea what will be needed. The question of "genetic deterioration" is always one of values, not of truth. The truth of it is not something that human beings can answer, except maybe in retrospect. Otherwise, it's up to evolution and God to sort out.--Pariah (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually having done a search at PubMed Central for dysgenic I have found 446 articles that make reference to dysgenic.[12] The thing is none of the ones I have looked at are at all about intelligence. They are about scientists deliberately making crosses of organisms that they know will produce a deletarious result in the offspring in order to investigate the causes of these delatarious effects. For example Evidence for maternally transmitted small interfering RNA in the repression of transposition in Drosophila virilis. Anyone can open this document, PubMed Central only lists open access papers. As such I suggest that it would be informative to take a look at this paper and search it for the term "dysgenic". One will find references such as:

• Aside from Penelope, at least four other unrelated elements are mobilized in the dysgenic cross:
• Here we examine the pattern of TE-derived repeat-associated siRNA in the hybrid dysgenic cross.
• In the 15 years since the original observation of hybrid dysgenesis between strain 9 and strain 160, the degree of sterility found in dysgenic F1 males and females has decreased somewhat.
• We also examined Penelope siRNA expression in adult progeny of both the dysgenic (Fig. 1B, lane Dys) and nondysgenic (Fig. 1B, lane Ndys) cross. In the nondysgenic cross, adults of both sexes exhibited presumptive Penelope siRNA, whereas in the dysgenic cross, this species of RNA was absent from adult males but present in adult females. Evidence presented in the next section indicates that the presumptive siRNA observed in the adult females of the dysgenic cross derives from the X chromosome transmitted by the strain 160 males in the cross.
  

"Flux control and excess capacity in the enzymes of glycolysis and their relationship to flight metabolism in Drosophila melanogaster":

• P-elements were excised by using male flies in standard dysgenic crosses (19).
  

Clearly in biology dysgenics is a specific stratagem used to breed organisms that are known to produce compromised offspring, by the study of these offspring biologists can learn about the in vivo molecular biology of these organisms.
Clearly dysgenic crosses are a deliberate biological strategy.
When I do a PubMed Central search for dysgenics on the other hand there are a mere five results, One of which is a publication from 1923, two of which are book reviews for a book that was published in 1960. Another is the abstracts of a meeting from 1970 in which William Shockley gave a talk and the last of is another book review.[13]
This sort of result must beg the question, why does this article not say what dysgenic crosses are? Why does it not discuss the sort of breedings that Drosophila spp. researchers undertake in their research? Why is it about "intelligence" when a search of the current available medical and biological research literature does not mention humans or intelligence at all? If this article is about dysgenics then make it about that subject, otherwise it appears to be little more than a place to push a discredited right wing political agenda. Alun (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this content is relevant to the article topic, satisfies WP:RS and, hence, should be incorporated into the article. It may be that the human/intelligence content will need to be trimmed further to satisfy WP:UNDUE, based on the relative small number of citations that you have found on that aspect of the topic. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I fully agree.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenic fallacy

I added a new section, Dysgenic fallacy, to the article with one of the citations suggested by Ramdrake. It probably could be clarified and expanded. The other citations could be added, as well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to understand (certainly seems a bit counterintuitive to me), but I guess that's the nature of it. To clarify, the whole section is based on the reference cited at the end, right? Richard001 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the contribution of Ramdrake above on this topic for another reference that could be added. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The clarification between value-laden and fitness based deterioration

I think any article discussing scientific aspects of this topic needs to make a clear distinction between fact and value. When you say 'bad genes', there are two different meanings possible: Bad in terms of fitness (genes that lower the biological fitness of the organism (and the other genes it in)), and bad in terms of our values. The former is value-free, but isn't generally what people mean if they say 'bad genes'. To give a couple of examples, one such case might be myopia: genes for good eyesight might deteriorate if we no longer need it. If we returned to our old lifestyles, e.g. in Africa before we could make lenses, this would probably cause a significant reduction in our fitness, but in 'modern societies' it probably makes no difference (the effects of environment make this one particularly difficult to grapple with). A good example to distinguish fitness from desirability is rape - genes for rape may increase fitness (see sociobiological theories of rape). In terms of values, people becoming more myopic is probably something we would like not to happen, though it probably isn't something anyone would advocate sterilizing people over. In the case of rape, we'd be quite happy to see such genes deteriorate (and 'rape genes' would also probably be genetically deleterious in the current environment, even if possibly adaptive in the past).

This distinction needs to be made clearly and early on in the article. Richard001 (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you; unfortunately the page is currently in a bit of a muddle, but I think we really ought to remember this in the future. Harkenbane (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring & Mediation?

Ramdrake, I haven't looked at any recent response you might have made above, and I'd like to, but I'm concerned by your recent edit, tagged with "Please take this to the talk page rather than edit-warring. There are serious reasons why this is spelled out this way." I was originally looking forward to trying to incorporating Mrsadriankaur's suggestions into the article, and now that isn't really feasible, because I can see that you'll simply revert anything you don't like. Revert if you must! But telling others not to do as you do won't fly. Would you be bothered if I called for mediation? Harkenbane (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against informal mediation, but I wouldn't expect it to vindicate your position too much: as it stands, this article is based on the works of a handful of fringe scientists, the dysgenic effect on intelligence still remains to be demonstrated, etc. In short, it qualifies as WP:FRINGE. This needs to be corrected.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is however you lack sources to back up your emotional arguments. From what I gathered you have one source that claims that there is no dysgenic trend, but I haven't seen the argumentation since the full article isn't available to me. Regardless, I have little time to edit, and most of it is wasted on discussions, so I have no option but to revert till you use sound sources for your edits, or edit in a manner that all parties can agree with. --Zero g (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. You can't decide you'll keep edit-warring and reverting because you can't be bothered to discuss the issues on the talk page. I have raised several concerns, and you haven't addressed them; you have just reverted to your favourite version of the article. That's not the way to build consensus, and judging by many of the other comments on this talk page, you don't have consensus. Please discuss.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Like the edit history says, you're removing sourced content and adding disputed content that isn't sourced since the provided source does not back up the claims that are made. And as a matter of fact, you are the one who continuously edit wars and refuses to work toward consensus. It should go without saying that as an editor it's my duty to revert vandalism, whether it's from a bored 12 years old, or an adult on a crusade with too much time on his hands. --Zero g (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd been following the talk page, Alun added a sourced definition of Dysgenics, which is better than the unsourced definition that was there. The some of the rest was removed by Wsiegmund on grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE (including some rather gross, unsourced overgeneralizations). Furthermore, there is a consensus being built around a new direction for this article. From waht I can see, you just reverte because you didn't like the new edits. Well, it doesn't work that way.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz and Zero g

I'd like to ask Jagz and Zero g to discuss their objections to the article, and wholesale reverting of edits done by no less than 3 different editors, in order to bring this article back to their preferred version. This seems to me as a violation of WP:POINT. It would be more constructive to discuss edits here.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is another case of you Wikilawyering. Me and Jagz have reverted the deletion of a large section of the article, as well as the addition of a badly written higly POV introduction. Your behavior is juvenile, disruptive, and needs to stop. --Zero g (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest reviewing WP:DR, please? "Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." I may not be doing a very good job of this, but before the recent efforts of several editors, the article was heavily skewed toward one particular view, as pointed out by a number of editors above. Can we discuss how to proceed? We can try WP:RFC, but it seems to me that those who have already commented have suggested that the article was unbalanced and emphasized a particular aspect of the article topic in preference to other views. Further comments are likely to continue in a similar vein, I suspect. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is balanced, as it describes the published literature on dysgenics in a neutral fashion.

While I understand your point of view, that dysgenics is unscientific ideology driven nonsense (which I've been more than willing to incorporate in the intro despite the lack of a good source) you need sources that are 1) about dysgenics and 2) correctly state what the article says the source states, to add that POV (in a neutral manner) to the article.

As mentioned before, I suggest you read the available literature and make edits if you feel that the article does not neutrally describe the currently sourced material.

Let it be known that your lack of interest for dysgenics, other than that you seem to vehemently disagree with the concept, isn't a very healty motivation for editing this article. If I for example disliked Donald Duck it wouldn't be a very healthy thing to start googling up negative sources of Donald Duck, next edit war in the article to get in some negative information, like adding to the introduction that the well known duck is a racist and nazi. [14] --Zero g (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, refrain from personal attacks. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the researchers you are quoting for sources are for the most part very controversial and their views highly disputed, even debunked. Their science has been called "fringe", "junk", "bad" science, even "racist" science. This is why it is important to properly frame the theory as not being part of mainstream science, because it isn't. One of the main issues this article had was that it presented the dysgenic hypothesis as if it were accepte, mainstream science when it absolutely isn't.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where I made a personal attack, if I caused offense I apologize. Back on topic: As it is you have one or two sources disputing the validity of a dysgenic trend. I've seen no source labeling any of the studies on dysgenics as fringe/junk/bad science. I'm personally not concerned what the popular media and special interest groups have to say about pioneer fundees. I think however that the article could use a section on the pioneer fund, and its unique role regarding stimulating research in this area. Given that the pioneer fund funded any of the dysgenic research mentioned in the article. --Zero g (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to start here and here. While not specifically about dysgenics, these articles explain in depth the role the Pioneer Fund played in eugenics research, especially in the USA. Of particular importance is the section "The Pioneer Fund in the New Millenium" in the first ref, pp 815-825. Again, the discussion is not specifically about dysgenics, but it gives a good background about who these researchers are, and why their research should legitimately be considered junk science (or to use the terms used in the article, politically and ideologically motivated.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, their research being junk science would be an opinion, not a fact. Secondly, this is the viewpoint I'm trying to incorporate into the introduction, but in such a way it isn't provided as a fact but as an opinion.

While at it, how about making a Pioneer Fund grantee category in the eugenics category? It would seem like the proper way to go about it rather than editing and maintaining this information in each article. --Zero g (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, their research being politically/ideologically motivated is something which comes back often enough in the literature that it is the mainstream opinion. It needs to be presented as fact that the hypothesis of a dysgenic trend in intelligence is a junk science concept, an that it is not borne out by testing results.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding sources to support your POV. --Zero g (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already provided the sources here. If you can't be bothered to read them, that's not my problem, but please don't tell me this is an unsupported viewpoint. It is very well supported, and it is mainstream.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)