Talk:Dysgenics/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Biological studies

The section "biological studies" appears to have little to do with the article topic. I don't see "dysgenics" in the sources. The results of Travison et al. are not attributed to changes in allele frequency nor could they be. The study covers less than two decades, i.e., less than one generation in Homo sapiens. "Since men are the (biologically) weaker sex, any dysgenic trend would be more likely to affect males first, opposed to females" has a source only for the first phrase. The Legato reference is opinion and does not meet the criteria of WP:RS in this context. It doesn't mention "dysgenics" or a related topic. The illustration caption does not mention the article topic nor does it relate to it in an obvious way. Absent from the list of authorities are population geneticists who might be expected to have expertise related to this topic. Page numbers supporting the caption are not cited nor is the relevant passage quoted. Is there a source linking the picture to the article topic?

As it relates to humans, this term is little used nowadays. Drawing inferences from sources that do not mention "dysgenics" is discouraged by the no original research policy. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of dysgenics - Dysgenics (also known as cacogenics) is the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species.

I think declining testosterone levels in men would be considered a disadvantage trait--obviously weaker men are surviving due to modern medicine and conveniences (there is no natural selection process to weed them out), so overtime, weaker and weaker strains will survive, and pass on their disadvantaged endocrine make-up to the next generation. Peter Mcalister lays this theory out best, but he attributes it to "evolutionary biology", which of course, isn't evolution at all......because Peter clearly states in his book that modern man is at his worst. See the salon article -- http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/11/14/manthropology_interview

Richard Whitmere and Leonard Sax just simply seemed baffled that boys are falling behind, and print all the statitics to prove it. They are just pointing to the decline in males.

The travison article does points to a generational decline--45 year-olds had a higher testosterone levels 20 years ago, than 45 year olds today.......as well as the Dindyal, S article......... both articles state they don't know what is causing it, so the interpretation is left up to the reader. They didn't say it wasn't dysgenics either.....they clearly say they don't know, but it still demonstrates a declining trait regardless what is causing the fall-off.

My point with the references is they all point to a definite downward trend....... Sempre30 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have sources that connect these observations to the article topic, this content is WP:OR, to wit, "[e]ven with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". Interviews are not reliable sources, for this sort of content.[1]. Please review WP:RS. Consequently, I've removed the section "Biological studies". The papers on the effects of putative endocrine disrupters may be appropriate for that article.

An introduction to human molecular genetics : mechanisms of inherited diseases by Jack J Pasternak (2005) ISBN 9780471474265 appears to be a reliable source that discusses dysgenics. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. You've made a decision, and I respect that, but I think I at least want to get an opposing opinion. I will probably ask the the editor Victor_Chmara to weight in on the subject. I cited Peter Mcalister's book and interview, the extra data just supports Peter's view,,,,,,not my view.....Peter's view. I didn't assert men were in decline, the source/book did Manthropology: The Science of Why the Modern Male Is Not the Man He Used to Be.... so how is that my original research???? Sempre30 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This will have to be done after the holiday, because I'm going out of town, btw....Sempre30 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sources don't mention "dysgenics", the article topic. You have asserted that these sources are about dysgenics, but that is your inference and opinion. A careful reading suggests otherwise. Peter McAllister's book may be a reliable source, but an interview is not, in my opinion. You cited the interview. According to Google Books, the book does not mention "dysgenics". The reviewer describes it as "a tongue-in-cheek look at the science of maleness". Is it is a serious work of scholarship? Is this archaeologist an expert on eugenics and evolutionary biology? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology may be a good place to request other opinions, if you wish. On Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard you may ask if a source is suitable as a reference. Best wishes for a pleasant holiday. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Psychopathy

Why was this material removed? Obviously an increase in fertility for psychopaths is interesting and relevant.Miradre (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Because none of the sources given even mention Dysgenics. The connection was made by the author of the Wikipedia's text - which is a classic case of WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There are supporting studies that explicitly mentions dysgenics: [2]Miradre (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, none of the sources which were given in that section mentioned Dysgenics. So there might be some other source which talks about something similar but different, which is again by Lynn (seriously - is Wikipedia a house journal for this guy's "controversial" studies?), another Pioneer Fund fundee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem against Lynn is not relevant for his research. Do you have any scientific objections to the study? Otherwise I all add it.Miradre (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cross-Generational Assessment Test Analysis

Added new section. I debated about posting this for some time, but figure it does show a discernable decline in student quality, if not intelligence. Seymour Itzkoff pointed to falling SAT scores as his dysgenic argument in the book, "The Decline of Intelligence in America: A Strategy for National Renewal. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994. ISBN 9780275944674" so I figure it fits into the subject matter... Sempre30 (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Restored the sources under the the "cross generation" section........the references very much support Itzkoff's assertion, which is declining test scores, and shows his line of thought has some validation......that it isn't without merit . Sempre30 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

History of dysgenics

The following content was removed with the edit summary "nothing about genetics".[3] The title of the cited journal article is "Roman Culture and Dysgenic Lead Poisoning". Consequently, this cited content is relevant to the history of the article topic. The connection was clear in my 2006 edit that added this content.[4] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

During 1965, Colum Gillfallen speculated in The Mankind Quarterly that lead used by Romans for plumbing and cooking utensils poisoned the water and food of the Roman elite, causing the decline of the Roman Empire. Gillfallen's theory was refuted during 1985 by Needleman and Needleman, who showed that measurements of lead from bones of Romans and other peoples did not provide any evidence that the fertility of the Roman elite was adversely affected.

I've reverted the article to the version before the start of the vandalism. aprock (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No reason to revert the rest if you want to include that paragraph. Added back the paragraph but kept the rest of the changes.Miradre (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All this is besides the point. Mankind Quarterly, a racist journal, is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia is not a forum for propagation of such ideas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The above content needs to be restored. Why I don't personally think it is overly relevent, the editor who authored the above statement has been over-seeing the dysgenic page for the last 5 or 6 years. He has a well established track record. Tenure. It is very intrusive, and takes some nerve for another editor, who has offered virtually no previous input on this page, who has a highly biased editorial style, and who has essentially no formal science background to speak of, come here and start dictating what belongs on the page............especially when it has been so closely monitored by others over a several year period. Sempre30 (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund, Lynn & Neisser

What exactly is the 'attack' I made?Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Being a PF gramtee, which you mentioned above, is not relevant for the scientific status of his research. Ad hominem.Miradre (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, given how PF is usually described in reliable source, it really is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PF is both criticized and praised in reliable sources. Ad hominem is not a scientific argument.Miradre (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PF is both criticized and praised in reliable sources. - heh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is. For example, Ulric Neisser, the head of the American Psychological Association's Task Force on Race and Intelligence (hard to think of a more qualified expert), gave the PF overall a weak plus.Miradre (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

<-- The misrepresentation of Neisser that has been pushed by quoting him out of context has already been discussed elsewhere. Bottom line is that the Pioneer Fund is widely regarded as a racist organization. That may sound like "ad hominem", but if true (and it does appear to be), then yes, it is very relevant here. In fact proper attribution would involve something like "Richard Lynn, a grantee of the Pioneer Fund, an organization widely described as racist, writes that blah blah blah". That would be keeping it honest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation. That was Neisser's final conclusion on the PF. The article already mentions the PF and even includes the view that it is a "hate group" so I fail to see your point. Miradre (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, already discussed elsewhere, and I'm not interested in having the same conversation for like the fifth time, particularly since it seems it doesn't help any.

The article already mentions the PF and even includes the view that it is a "hate group" so I fail to see your point - so we have an organization which is widely described as racist and a "hate group", and you want to keep on adding more and more studies by a guy who 1) gets his money from this group, 2) is on the board of this group and 3) is on the editorial board of the Mankind Quarterly journal, which has also been widely described as racist ... and you "fail to see the point"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if you were completely right (which you are not), then also racists are allowed to express their view in WP. Where is WP policy stating that ad hominem is a reason for disallowing peer-reviewed articles? Miradre (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean that I am not right? Which part? That PF and MQ are widely described as racist? That Lynn is on the board of PF? That Lynn is on the editorial board of MQ? That Lynn has been a PF grantee in the past? Which one of these statements is incorrect?

And no, while in certain context we can present racist views, properly attributed to the person making them and in the proper context, generally speaking Wikipedia is not a forum for racist views. This is the essence of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed studies do not usually fall under WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE. You have presented no evidence that the views regarding dysgenics are scientifically incorrect or even "fringe" in the scientific community. Instead you use ad hominem attacks which is not valid scientific arguments.Miradre (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also not sure why you mention race in an article about dysgenics since no one of the cited texts make any racial claims.Miradre (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about views on Dysgenics. I said something about researchers associated with the Pioneer Fund. And it's not up to me - at least not on Wikipedia - to "present evidence" that something is "scientifically incorrect". The race thing comes into it because you are using sources from people associated with a racist organizations - as has already been pointed out.

You have also not answered my question about what was supposedly incorrect in my statement above. As I recall this is what happened last time we had a discussion - when you were asked to provide an answer or address a particular point you quickly changed the topic and started talking about something else. That's not a way to have a productive discussion though I guess it is a good way to test someone's patience.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What question? That some people consider Lynn a racist? Certainly, some do. This view does not make this a fact. Personally, I think Lynn would certainly describe himself as a race realist (races exist and are important on a societal levels) but not as a "racist" which implies the view that some groups are somehow morally superior and worth more as human beings.

But rejecting peer-reviewed studies (not even on a race issue) because some people dislike the author is ad hominem and is not a scientifically valid argument.You have presented no evidence that this research on dysgenics (again, not on race) are incorrect or fringe in scientific community.Miradre (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then what where you referring to when you said Even if you were completely right (which you are not)?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if Lynn is a closet racist this does not mean that somehow invalidates all of his scientific research (also in fields not even about race!). Science is validated or not by scientific arguments. Not by attacking the researcher as a person. That is not a valid scientific argument.Miradre (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the "Even if" part. What was the "which you are not (right)" part?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That some people consider Lynn to be a racist does not necessarily mean that he is in fact a racist. Differentiate between views and facts.Miradre (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, except I never stated that Lynn was a racist. What I said is that Pioneer Fund is widely described as a racist organization. That Lynn is on its board. That Mankind Quarterly is widely described as a racist journal. That Lynn is on its editorial board. So again, what did I say that was incorrect?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, lets assume all of this is correct. How is this relevant for this article about dysgenics? Miradre (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if Lynn is a closet racist this does not mean that somehow invalidates all of his scientific research (also in fields not even about race!). Science is validated or not by scientific arguments. Not by attacking the researcher as a person. That is not a valid scientific argument. - Exactly. These claims only disrupt Wikipedia are not reason for blanking of reliable sources. Is some source more or less reliable when it´s opponents call it "racist" or "anti-racist"? --Dezidor (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Directed to the editor that removed my input, I did explain the revert, read it under the "cross generation" section of the discussion page Sempre30 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

More discussion added under the "history of dysgenics" section. Sempre30 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Race Discussion

I was really hoping race would not become a part of the discussion here at the dysgenic article, since all races (for the exception of maybe the Chinese) practice dysgenics. Most previous posters seemed to honor this unspoken code. However, a couple of recent arrivals brought the subject over and brought the standards down. All sorts of obscure topics are being entertained. The discussion page went from civil to chaotic. I'm very disappointed in the turn of events. If one want's to see the quality of my work here, one will have to revert it. I really have nothing left to add to this circus. Sempre30 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, the term "Dysgenics" originated in Eugenics circles so there's an immediate connection there. Additionally, many of these modern day Dysgenicists do in fact talk about race.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly

One more time. Mankind Quarterly, a racist journal, is not a reliable source. What else is there to say?Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal and you claim that it is "ulreliable". SPLC is left wing advocacy group and you claim (in different discussion) that it is realiable source? Be serious. --Dezidor (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

While it does have a strong pov, the SPLC is indeed generally regarded as reliable on Wikipedia ("reliable" is not the same thing as "unbiased"). See here and here for previous discussion. The only thing is that it's probably a good idea to attribute text to them: "According to the SPLC..."

On the other hand, the only sense in which MQ is "peer-reviewed academic" is that they get other racist authors to read their stuff. It is widely and frequently referred to as "racist" (and in similar terms). I'm not even gonna bother linking to sources (again) to show this, because they are trivially easy to find. So yes, I am perfectly serious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "reliable" is not the same thing as "unbiased". Claims that alleged racist (maybe real in another cases) bias of some sources is reason for they unreliability are not correct and valid. We can speak about academic qualification of scientists like professor Lynn but that claims of "racism" are not argument for exclusion. --Dezidor (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

But the fact that a particular text has been published in MQ is in fact an argument for exclusion. What is perhaps up for debate is whether someone like Lynn's work in other - legitimate - journals can be considered "reliable", or is his association with MQ enough to discredit his whole oeuvre. Personally I'd argue the latter, but my experience with Wikipedia is that people disagree on this. So basically, MQ = no way, Lynn-not-in-MQ = maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A western publication like MQ that readily concedes that north-eastern Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, more intelligent than gentile whites, isn't what I would define as a "racist" source, but nonetheless, all cultures and races can benefit from ethical eugenics, and suffer from indifferent dysgenics, so there is no racist motivation on my part (I can't speak for the other advocates). I do, however, believe that there is a genetic and biological component to intelligence, and also believe there is no down-side to wanting ones off-spring to have a higher IQ, and to be mentally healthy. Sempre30 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Defining racism on your own terms isn't going to get you very far. Reviewing the sources from the lede of Mankind Quarterly, there appears to be a number of secondary sources which view it's work as racist. aprock (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

MQ that readily concedes that north-eastern Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, more intelligent than gentile whites - yeah, right, this is a standard tactic of the (newer) white supremacists; say something nice about Asians and/or Ashkenazi Jews so they can get on to hating on the blacks and browns and then pretend "oh we're not really racist, see". That trick hasn't worked in a while.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked out the "sources" to the wikipedia MQ lede, and the first five listed sources are not linked, and the sixth source is a law review on segregation (where's the science??), and about 3/4 of the sources for the article do not even mention MQ in the title. I did see a lot of references to the bell curve.....but that isn't what we're discussing here. Keep in mind, none of the material I provided on the dysgenic article (which was deleted) even referenced MQ........ur own fricking wikipedia esteemed editor sourced the MQ rag, and I was just defending his position, because I interpreted his work as being more neutral. Sempre30 (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So what if they're not linked? You got a library where you live? So what if they don't mention MQ in the title? They tend to be general works on the white nationalist/racist movements. If you got a problem with the reliability of any of these sources, take it to RSN. You'll waste your time and mine. I have no idea what the last bolded sentence of yours is supposed to refer to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Below was posted by your editor Walter Siegmund, and then deleted, that's what I'm refering too: Sempre30 (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"The following content was removed with the edit summary "nothing about genetics".[31] The title of the cited journal article is "Roman Culture and Dysgenic Lead Poisoning". Consequently, this cited content is relevant to the history of the article topic. The connection was clear in my 2006 edit that added this content.[32] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

During 1965, Colum Gillfallen speculated in The Mankind Quarterly that lead used by Romans for plumbing and cooking utensils poisoned the water and food of the Roman elite, causing the decline of the Roman Empire.[1] Gillfallen's theory was refuted during 1985 by Needleman and Needleman, who showed that measurements of lead from bones of Romans and other peoples did not provide any evidence that the fertility of the Roman elite was adversely affected.[2]"' 05:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first, turn off the bold text because when you do it this much it's as obnoxious as shouting in all caps. Second I have no idea who Walter Siegmund is, and in what way is he "my" editor. What the hell does that even mean? Anyway. It's all beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter Siegmund Why don't you visit his user page at the link. I guess I assumed he was some kinda official editor, but maybe I'm wrong. Sempre30 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess he is an "official editor" - official just like you and I. But anyway, I don't know him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've edited since September, 2005, so I think that makes me fairly senior among active editors today, but that doesn't give me any special status regarding content disputes. I haven't interacted with Volunteer Marek before.

In 2006, Gillfallen (1970) was added by User:Zero g.[5] In addition to the paper published by the pernicious Mankind Quarterly, Gilfillan published a similar paper in “Lead Poisoning and the Fall of Rome” (Journal of Occupational Medicine 7 [1965] 53-60). I remember reading uncritical reports on his theory in the popular press in the 1960s. It was reported by Time Magazine, among others.[6] I was curious to know if it had been reviewed subsequently. I was pleased to find Needleman and Needleman (1985), a substantial, but undeservedly neglected, critique of Gilfillan. I think Wikipedia may be well-served by providing the Needleman and Needleman critique of the much-reported arguments of Gilfillan, as part of the history of the term.

Regarding the Lynn content, Lynn and "Mankind Quarterly" must be identified as purveyors of scientific racism. To do otherwise is to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote such thought. "Richard Lynn and Mankind Quarterly exist. The content of those articles must not be duplicated here. That violates WP:CFORK. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Cross Generation Assessment Test

Aprock is clearly uninformed. The book, The Decline of Intelligence in America: A Strategy for National Renewal, is littered with references to declining SAT scores, dysgenics, and the lost of intelligence . Seymour also edited Dysgenics by Richard Lynn Sempre30 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That is called tendentious editing and is liable to get you blocked.Ramdrake (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cross generation has been restored with supporting source. Sempre30 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, your edit is against obvious consensus,and you have a duty to discuss it and convince other editors of its validity before restoring it. Otherisel this becomes edit-warring and is also lale to get you blocked. Please review WP:TE and WP:Edit warring.Ramdrake (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I hae again rmoved the section you inserted, as the references do not support your edit, or in the verly limited way they might be, they are obviously given an importance they do not have, being this far out of mainstream scentific thought on the subject. Please do not restore.Ramdrake (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sempre30; Please don't call an editorial dispute "vandalism". You may find the guidance of WP:BATTLE helpful. If you make the case for the content you favor in a clear, calm and thoughtful manner, you may persuade other editors that it should be included. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Population Booms and Dysgenics.

If we accept that the number of children a couple has is genetically determined, then it follows that the few couples in the population who are most profligate quickly outnumber and overwhelm the rest. In the process, the overpopulation unwittingly inbreeds, leading to dysgenia in the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuildCompounder (talk • contribs) 23:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a forum or a publisher of original thought. You have been reminded of this previously.[7] Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Volkmar Weiss

This source by Volkmar Weiss is especially important to the science of dysgenics and warrants citation in this article. Any thoughts?74.14.74.73 (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Weiss, like Richard Lynn publishes in Mankind Quarterly, thought by many to be a racist journal. Since the article already gives ample weight to the opinions of Richard Lynn, adding content related to Weiss may violate WP:UNDUE. Since Lynn and Weiss have similar views, I suppose that citations from Weiss could be added to content based on Lynn. I think the sources suggested by WeijiBaikeBianji above should be given much more weight in the article. With publication in the journal Nature and over 1500 citations in the scientific literature according to Google Scholar, Devlin, B., Daniels, M., & Roeder, K. (1997) The heritability of IQ. Nature 1997;388:468-471, is about as mainstream as you can get. On the other hand, the most highly cited Weiss paper, "Major genes of general intelligence", Personality and individual Differences, 1992, was cited 23 times, 10 by Weiss, himself, or Lynn.[8] An introduction to human molecular genetics : mechanisms of inherited diseases by Jack J Pasternak (2005) ISBN 9780471474265, a college textbook is another neutral source. I've changed your section heading; section headings on talk pages should be neutral in tone. Thanks, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Flynn Effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

It states a direct inverse correlation between intelligence and fertility rates. In that the more fertile a person is, the less intelligent they are. It's been researched well enough to be a citation for where the article references this.

We could replace those requests for citation with a cite to the Flynn Effect. This isn't my article, though, so it's not my place to do that. I just thought it was worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.172.208 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Human Biology and Anthropology Sources, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I have been revising this source list from time to time since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and hope to continue to update and expand it for years to come. To answer a frequently asked question, I maintain the citations list in my Wikipedia user space to make clear that I am responsible for what sources are listed and for ensuring that the bibliographic information is correct. I have learned about these sources from my own reading on this topic since 1969, from the citations in dozens of different Wikipedia articles I've read since 2010, and from browsing in academic research library systems and huge public library systems (all blessed with computerized catalogs during the last twenty years), and from using the Wikipedia Library to update Wikipedia articles. But this source list is always incomplete, as new research reviews and textbooks and handbooks about this broad topic are published every month, and I have hundreds of sources still to review and check to add to the source list. You are welcome to use these sources for your own research (on-wiki or off-wiki, of course). You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments I welcome through the source list talk page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as statements about preliminary genetic studies in the popular press often run far ahead of the verified scientific evidence. Enjoy your reading; see you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some good sources to start with.

*Gottesman, I. I.; Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1971). "Prologue: A Foundation for Informed Eugenics". Social Biology. 18 (Supplement): S1–S8. PMID 5125947. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

*Reed, Sheldon C. (1979). "A short history of human genetics in the USA". American Journal of Medical Genetics. 3 (3): 282–295. doi:10.1002/ajmg.1320030308. ISSN 0148-7299. PMID 384792. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

*Andersson, Gunnar; Rønsen, Marit; Knudsen, Lisbeth; Lappegård, Trude; Neyer, Gerda; Skrede, Kari; Teschner, Kathrin; Vikat, Andres (3 April 2009). "Cohort Fertility Patterns in the Nordic Countries" (PDF). Demographic Research. 20. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research: 313–352. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2009.20.14. ISSN 1435-9871. Retrieved 1 January 2014. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Review articles on the topic of this article are helpful for establishing due weight for the claims from differing primary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

List of refs that denining dysgenics for intelligence

Can anyone list some refs that denining dysgenics for intelligence? Otherwise it must be concluded that, for any researchers who have looked into the issue of dysgenics for intelligence, they have found it is the case. Therefore, dysgenics for intelligence is a majority view.--The Master (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean "denying"? Look, all phenotypic traits are partially heritable, and a reduction in selection pressure with increased medical care and welfare will, over the long term, lead to deterioration in all traits historically selected for. "Intelligence" is just one random example, but for some reason people tend to obsess over it. It is disingenious to say "dysgenics for intelligence is a majority view". It is certaliny a (trivial) "majority view" that all and any trait can and will suffer dysgenic effects if you take away selection, this is almost devoid of information, the interesting question is with what speed will these effects proceed, and can they already be measured in populations who lived in industrialized societies for a couple of generations. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see my 23 November 2014 comment above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

first use of "dysgenic"

The following excerpt from Francis Galton seems to imply an earlier use of the word "dysgenic" then claimed in the article ("It was first used c. 1915 by David Starr Jordan, describing the supposed dysgenic effects of World War I."):

Galton invented the term eugenics in 1883 and set down many of his observations and conclusions in a book, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. He believed that a scheme of 'marks' for family merit should be defined, and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged by provision of monetary incentives. He pointed out some of the tendencies in British society, such as the late marriages of eminent people, and the paucity of their children, which he thought were dysgenic. He advocated encouraging eugenic marriages by supplying able couples with incentives to have children. On 29 October 1901, Galton chose to address eugenic issues when he delivered the second Huxley lecture at the Royal Anthropological Institute.

Namely that Galton invented the term and first used it. --MarSch (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dysgenics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318135516/http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/D0446000.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/D0446000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022043901/http://mysite.du.edu/~psherry/bellcrv.html to http://mysite.du.edu/~psherry/bellcrv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Cacogenics

Google: "cacogenics -dictionary -definition -rhyme -synonym -dict -pronounce -antonym -anagram -nam"

Basically nothing.

The only keyword suppressed that has anything to do with usage is "nam", which shows up (many times) in the title of one paper using this term.

Very far from an established usage, notwithstanding the dictionary entry. — MaxEnt 17:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Effect of War

The current text "...healthy men were as likely to die in modern warfare as anyone else and that war killed only the physically healthy men of the populace..." reads like a piece of incoherent nonsense --- although I can try to guess what might be intended. I don't feel confident enough, in my guess as to the intended meaning, to make a correction myself, but I think it would help greatly if someone else could improve the text. (--- Unsigned and undated comment)

"Jordan believed that healthy men were as likely to die in modern warfare as anyone else and that war killed only the physically healthy men of the populace whilst preserving the disabled at home.[5]"

This reads perfectly coherently, and seems just as correctly written, to me. This is older style English, which might reflect the age of the source. Personally I think newer style English has often been dumbed down, and both meaning and specificity is sometimes lost by this. Of course, I am not alone in this opinion, a good example is the debate about the design of the new British five pound (£5) note, with its loss of punctuation on a Winston Churchill quote:

'Prof Alan Smithers, head of the centre for education and employment research at the University of Buckingham, said: "We are living in a post-punctuation world created by big institutions. Some people may dismiss omissions as pedantry, but they have lost sight of the fact that precision of expression reflects precision of thought."' [9]

"...precision of expression reflects precision of thought." Quite so. I also think that precision of thought and of expression is conducive to precise communication of ideas, which is of course can be very important.

If you think this older style of language is entirely outdated, I suggest you watch or read content from England, which is of course the birthplace of the English language (not having ever visited, I am not an expert on their use of it). There are many common examples of language like this, for example when watching the current Prime Minister Theresa May answering questions at press conferences, or exchanges in the Houses of the British parliament.

I've personally heard a number of middle-aged Britons using English like this conversationally in the last few years, and having read a lot of old books, it's like music to my soul. A lot of elderly New Zealander's also speak like this (I am from New Zealand, though not elderly), and of course throughout the world there are some younger people who like to speak English properly (especially those well educated ones), and good on them for keeping the language healthy. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Just a heads-up that I've requested more eyes on this article at FT/N. Generalrelative (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liophidium.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Partial expansion in user space

While mopping up category changes, I stumbled across User:Liophidium/disc112 which is an incomplete draft expansion to this article, apparently abandoned. It may contain useful material. – Fayenatic London 13:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liophidium.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion: re-add the content?

Sock drawer. Generalrelative (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Uninvolved editors, do you think any of the content from my edit here [10] should remain? Also, take a look at @Generalrelative's other 29 deletions of user contributions on this page: [11]. The majority of the stable version page was deleted in this string of edits, which improved aspects the article and removed poor content, but also deleted reliable, sourced information in an apparent POV-push: [12] BooleanQuackery (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC) My edit was the inclusion of some of the content previously discussed for inclusion here: [13]. You can find diffs of a sampling of Generalrelative's more large and sketchy deletions/edits below, many of which are apparent POV-pushing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1090815213 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1090801488 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063390653 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063364997 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063362586 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063361299 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063605866 BooleanQuackery (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I don't support re-adding the content. You haven't actually made any case for inclusion, which should be your goal now per WP:ONUS. Some of the smaller edits I'm neutral on, like the lead edit saying that 'cacogenics' is used 'rarely'. Do you have a source for it? I skimmed TFD and couldn't spot it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC) There are poor quality sources for cacogenics being "rare." I think it's so rare that it doesn't really matter if it's included. BooleanQuackery (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Since this is an active talk page and discussion has just started, I have removed the "disputed" template as being premature. If you're going to ask such loaded questions in the hope of getting a "yes", the answer is almost always going to be "no" instead. If you want to make a case for each of these changes on their own, with support from specific and reliable sources, do so. Casting aspersions on another editor like this is not persuasive and poisons the well for consensus. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Source cited incorrectly

The "Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype across the 20th century" is quoted as a source to the claim that "genetic studies show no evidence for dysgenic effects". This seems to be the only genetic study cited, although I am not entirely sure what is meant by the word genetic here.

However, the study does not make such claim. It simply claims that the dysgenic effect has not accelerated.

"Thus, although there may be positive selection on height and slight negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education, these are not accelerating"

One cannot simultaneously claim that:

A. Cognitive ability is partly genetic

B. Those with high cognitive ability having fewer offsprings has no effect on how widespread genes associated with cognitive ability are

Environmental improvements can offset or slow down the impact of such dysgenic trends, but that does not mean that such dysgenic trends do not exist.

2A00:23C5:E31B:4801:E9B9:6E10:89E9:4658 (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)86.140.248.145 (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Turns out one can, and in fact it is population genetics 101 that heritable differences between individuals do not redound to group-level differences. As Ulric Neisser summarizes in one of the four (!) sources cited for the "no evidence" claim: There is no convincing evidence that any dysgenic trend exists. . . . It turns out, counterintuitively, that differential birth rates (for groups scoring high and low on a trait) do not necessarily produces changes in the population mean. Generalrelative (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out, one of the studies makes no such claim, but actually accepts negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education but simply points out it has not accelerated. Also, Persons argument that Neisser is summarizing is based on assumptions that are not widely accepted by other researchers in the field. It was also made before the existence of quantitative genetics that has proven this beyond reasonable doubt.

Or do you dispute the findings of the following study for example?

″Epidemiological and genetic association studies show that genetics play an important role in the attainment of education. Here, we investigate the effect of this genetic component on the reproductive history of 109,120 Icelanders and the consequent impact on the gene pool over time. We show that an educational attainment polygenic score, POLYEDU, constructed from results of a recent study is associated with delayed reproduction (P < 10−100) and fewer children overall. The effect is stronger for women and remains highly significant after adjusting for educational attainment. Based on 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990, we find that the average POLYEDU has been declining at a rate of ∼0.010 standard units per decade, which is substantial on an evolutionary timescale. Most importantly, because POLYEDU only captures a fraction of the overall underlying genetic component the latter could be declining at a rate that is two to three times faster.″ 86.140.248.145 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

References

reverted edit

@Generalrelative hi, can we discussed your reasons for the revert as the infromation is cited FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The point of enhancement and dysgenics is central to Nick Bostrom work, see his work Talk:Nick Bostrom#Support of "enhancements" and "genetic engineering" FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In section 5.3 “Dysgenic” pressures, of the cited work he writes 5.3

It is possible that advanced civilized society is dependent on there being a sufficiently large fraction of intellectually talented individuals. Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility. If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species, homo philoprogenitus (“lover of many offspring”). However, contrary to what such considerations might lead one to suspect, IQ scores have actually been increasing dramatically over the past century. This is known as the Flynn effect; see e.g. [51,52]. It’s not yet settled whether this corresponds to real gains in important intellectual functions. Moreover, genetic engineering is rapidly approaching the point where it will become possible to give parents the choice of endowing their offspring with genes that correlate with intellectual capacity, physical health, longevity, and other desirable traits.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, see my comment below. Bostrom seems to be pushing a WP:FRINGE POV here, so the we should be handling it per WP:FRIND and WP:ONEWAY. Generalrelative (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, your statement that genetic studies have shown no evidence is demonstrably false and misleading. 96.230.59.83 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

See, for example: The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience(Cambridge University Press, 2021), An Introduction to Statistical Genetic Data Analysis (MIT Press, 2020). Neither of these sources are even remotely WP:FRINGE 96.230.59.83 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw that. However any mention would have to be in a secondary source that is independent of Bostrom per WP:FRIND. And even if we had such a source, it would need to be prominent in order to overcome the general principle of WP:ONEWAY. (Honestly, the same thing could be said about the bit discussing Richard Lynn here, though I imagine that such sources could be found to support inclusion for Lynn.) I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I kinda get what you mean. I am assuming you are trying to avoid original research and interpretations especially for such controversial topic like this. I am glad you noticed the Richard Lynn inconsistency in your argument but I will leave it as it is. Thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not WP:OR but rather WP:FRIND: Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. I've now added an independent secondary source to the sentence discussion Lynn. His book is prominent enough (unfortunately) that it needs to be mentioned. Generalrelative (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@GeneralrelativeNick Bostrom work on this is far more insidious to say the least, and quoted alot! That paper that I have referenced has been cited over 800 times mostly favourably, he also referenced it when he apologised for using the N-word. He used to to push back on the use of the word eugenics "as the term is commonly understood" as he loves to talk about Dysgenics and "human enhancement"

and by that definition, here what I added about Dysgenics was what is discussed on an independent source, i.e., Nick Bostrom. Reference 6 in the article is Lynn perspective, you can add a separate comment that discussed in independent sources using ref. 5 but that does mean that ref. 6 which talks about the topic is not deemed as discussed in independent sources as this will give the illusion that you want a reference for the reference when summarising someone opinion, which is different from wanting an opinion that discussed in independent sources to comment on the referenced opinion

I kind question your interpretation for the WP:FRIND, BUT I understood from the moment I saw the article that was put for GA and the current version that someone systematically reduced this article from a scientific debate to pseudoscience, which I support regardless of the policy. However, I would have appreciated if someone made similar efforts to what was done on Climate change#Denial and misinformation or Eugenics#Controversy over scientific and moral legitimacy.

Just to be clear, I am not putting the burden on you to fix Wikipedia. Stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've read your comment three times and I'm afraid I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. For instance I simply *quoted* WP:FRIND to you, which is not an interpretation. Nor is the language of that guideline ambiguous in any way. We can certainly mention Bostrom's fringe views provided we have reliable sources sources independent of him demonstrating that they are notable. Feel free to provide such sources if you'd like to see him mentioned in this article. Generalrelative (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Disputed content (June 2024)

I invite Generalrelative to specify their reasons for disagreeing with the transclusion. One sensible solution might be to add sources relating these phenomena more directly to dysgenics in the respective sections...? Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, specifying sources relating the transcluded text to eugenics would be necessary for inclusion, per e.g. WP:SYNTH. Simply put, the edit in question looked to me to be indiscriminate and WP:UNDUE, though the WP:NOR angle is also concerning. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will re-write the respective sections as to reflect this intuition indeed shared by various researchers.

One question: assuming it were to satisfy these guidelines very well, would you object to an additional transclusion from "fertility and intelligence"? Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The proof will be in the pudding. Any additions to this article that comply with P&G are welcome. Generalrelative (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref quote

Biohistorian15 has twice now removed a quote within a reference on the grounds that it contains incomplete citations.[14][[15] It's unclear to me, even after they cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations in their revert of my revert, that this is disallowed. But even if it is, why not just replace the citations with ellipses? The quote is clearly helpful to the reader. Further, Biohistorian15's suggestion that I put it in my own words makes no sense since this quote is within a reference, and we do not offer paraphrasing within references, only direct quotes. Generalrelative (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten dozens of paragraphs I originally wanted to use blockquote on over at the eugenics article for this exact reason. Please do the same. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you may not even realize that this isn't a blockquote. Have you not even looked at the article? Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would the procedure be different in this case? It might well be true, but I have never seen incomplete APA-style citations being used like this on WP whatsoever. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a MOS question, I've started a thread over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the matter appears to have been settled over at MOS: in cases like this we simply omit the inline citations and add a note to the ref saying "Citations in original omitted." Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)