Talk:Race and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeRace and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 4, 2006Articles for deletionKept
April 11, 2011Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former good article nominee

Test Outcome and IQ used Interchangeably[edit]

This article continually confuses Tests and Assessments, such as "SAT" and "GRE" with IQ measures. These are completely different types of assessments. A group's SAT or GRE score trends says nothing about its IQ trends.

Regular school assessments are heavily influenced, by Education, preparation and cultural importance of education ( cultural differences ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to review the sources of this page and edit the page accordingly, it appears this page was (allowed?!) to be edited in a manner that uses false references (literally dead links or links to other links that are dead, LITERALLY). And it seems to be the ones denying or attempting to mystify whether or not there is any correlation between race and intelligence. Very disappointed to see fake crap all over this page. Give us the real nitty-gritty truth and cut the crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4501:7D75:F130:2F4B:AFE4:607F (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
You seem to know what is "false", so why don't you list all the falsities here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @ - SAT and IQ scores are definitely not synonymous, but given high g-loading of the SAT tests, they can be used to reasonably (albeit roughly) approximate group differences in IQ.
  • On an unrelated note, the section "research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences" should be re-titled "genetic influences on group differences in IQ," or else "research into genetic influences..." while the environmental section should be re-titled "research into environmental influences...." Otherwise, the article fails to present a neutral tone.

Cheers. DrPepper47 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Consider merging this with the page on Scientific racism.[edit]

I'm not sure what the difference between the two pages is. --2601:189:4203:133D:C02:CFBF:AB6B:94EC (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Opposed - This article is about theories concerning race and intelligence. The other article is about practices arising out of those theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Opposed - Scientific racism is a value laden term, thus fails NPOV. Mainstream sources concern this topic without calling it scientific racism. See also this previous discussion about Phil Rushton (can't find the link right now). Deleet (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Opposed - There is a real disparity in IQ scores between racial groups in the United States, which is not entirely explained by socioeconomic disparity, evincing a real disparity in cognitive ability. The scientific community has not reached a consensus on what causes it; categorizing legitimate research into it as "racist" is dismissive and intellectually irresponsible. DrPepper47 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@User:MPants at work:

First of all, I’m not “pushing” anything – out of respect for the editing community here, I have not made any edits to the article since our exchange over the issue of archaeological data – partially because I’ve been busy, but more so because I want to study this topic further before continuing to edit.
Rather, I made an educated suggestion in response to your statement about the issue. My evidence is not “shitty”:
  • Roth et al.’s 2001 meta-analysis, which reviewed over six million participants and was peer-reviewed by a well-respected journal of applied psychology, is one of the most comprehensive studies of this issue.
  • Snyderman and Rothman surveyed hundreds of academics with relevant expertise. The APA stated in 1995 that “no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.” Hunt and Haier have echoed in 2010 and 2016 that the cause of the gap is still unknown. Unless you can cite evidence to contradict these sources, we are at the mercy of them.
  • The 2016 Becker and Rindermann study was peer-reviewed by another well-respected psychological journal. While it does not conclude this debate, it does suggest a possible genetic component to the US racial gap.
With that said, arguing for the existence of a genetic component to the American racial IQ gap does not constitute scientific racism; IQ is not a measure of innate human worth. Furthermore, racial differences in intelligence – regardless of what causes them – do not justify the reduction, abandonment, or let alone reversion of efforts to ameliorate them. To the contrary, Arthur Jensen testified against segregation in the 1960s and called for increased emphasis on “efforts to improve the education of the disadvantaged,” pointing out that equality in associative learning abilities. Hans Eysenck explicitly stated that if the gap were of partial genetic origin, then “we are in duty bound to try and set up countervailing environmental pressures which would as far as possible redress this balance and bring the [African American] up to white standards.”
Anyway, can we respectfully agree to refrain from character attacks on this talk?

DrPepper47 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't a character attack and you really need to learn how to parse words better and draw logical distinctions if you can't figure that out on your own (that wasn't a character attack either: it was advice; good advice, given bluntly and without undue courtesy).
Also, you were explicitly pushing scientific racism with that comment below, as well as with your comment here. So even if that was commentary on your character, it would be accurate.
In addition, your "evidence" is, in fact shitty. You claimed that the 1 standard deviation held true "even when controlled for socio-economic status", however the study you cited explicitly states that socio-economic variables may "partially obscure the interpretation or causality of the exact effect of job complexity on standardized group differences. We encourage basic research into this issue below."
But the shittiness doesn't end there: Right before the passage I quotes (the paragraph immediately preceding it, as a matter of fact), the study warns about how one particularly large study that showed a large difference between black and white test scores has a disproportionately large effect on the results of this study itself. Yet you conveniently left out the fact that the results of this study might very well not be reflective of the actual intelligence of white vs black people. Indeed, you claimed that the difference was "an empirical fact".
You then proceeded to cite a number of studies equating either genetics in general or ethnicity (a markedly different category from race) with recorded IQ test scores without ever addressing any of the most commonly cited problems with such research, such as the correlation between functional intelligence and IQ test scores or the difficulties in defining "race" and equating it to ethnicity, and capped it all off by citing a 1987 survey to make a claim about the state of modern psychology.
So in case you didn't understand me: Your evidence isn't necessarily shitty because it's fundamentally flawed. Your evidence is shitty because you either don't understand it or are willfully misinterpreting it.
As a final note, this is an (old, and stale) move discussion. This is not the place to discuss the veracity of scientific racism. Nor is any other page on wikipedia. Go to (or wherever the hell they're located at) or some other site willing to entertain racism to have that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Archaeological data[edit]

  • The section only cites one study - this doesn't objectively conclude that "archaeological evidence does not support claims by Rushton and others." Further commentary from other anthropologists or archeologists would be appropriate.
  • This doesn't directly represent hereditarian arguments on the matter. Would it be more appropriately included under potential environmental influences? Please discuss.

Thank you. DrPepper47 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The section only cites one study - this doesn't objectively conclude that "archaeological evidence does not support claims by Rushton and others." Absent any contradicting archeological evidence: yes it does. Welcome to epistemology 101, lesson 1: If all the evidence points to X, then the amount of evidence relative to arbitrary measures of sufficiency is irrelevant, and it can be confidently stated that X is true, subject only to the usual caveats of philosophical skepticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
1) So does this study represent all of the evidence? Does it represent the opinion of the archaeological community?
2) Should we not at least (briefly) elaborate on how this evidence fails to support the hereditarian claims?
3) If there is no contradictory evidence, would this belong more appropriately under the environmental section?
4) Out of sheer curiosity, are there any websites where I can read more about this principle?
Thank you. DrPepper47 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. Yes, unless and until you find additional sources containing such evidence.
  2. No, see WP:OR.
  3. No, that makes no sense at all. I have no idea why you think "no contradicting evidence" changes archeological evidence to something else.
  4. You can read about it right here. Try Epistemology, Skepticism, Truth, Certainty, Uncertainty and Occam's razor. I would recommend further reading than just WP on the subject, but I don't see the point in mentioning more advanced works before you've read the primer, as it were. Yes, it is a huge subject that needs a lot of reading. My "welcome to epistemology 101" comment was not intended to be belittling, but a humorous nod to the complexity of it (though I do feel that the way I explained it was rather simple and easy to follow). To read more about how specifically that principle is used here on WP, read WP:V. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. Point taken.
  2. To clarify, I had in mind citing examples from MacEachern's study.
  3. Understood.
  4. Thank you. DrPepper47 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Re your point 2: That is still OR. Any analysis or discussion added to the article must be directly sourced to an RS. That is not to say that the subject of the analysis must be sourced, but the analysis itself. So we can't say anything about the evidence unless what we say is, itself accurately attributed to a reliable source.
Getting back to the original topic: If we only have one source covering a subject that could be covered by a large number of sources, each with it's own focus, then we are at a bit of an impasse, as we can only say that which our one source says. We are at the mercy of that source, as it were. This would include us pointing out outliers, or comparing and contrasting different datums included in the original source. Unless the source explicitly says it, or it is a logically inescapable conclusion from what the source does explicitly state, we cannot add it to our articles. Our rules against original research are extraordinarily constraining, and this is intentional. It takes quite a bit of time to learn to work within them, so don't be afraid to ask questions or make talk page proposals like this while you're still new here.
In this case, I don't actually believe there could be all that much evidence collected, and as such, not too many reliable sources written about it (even the source itself agrees with me on this). Furthermore, in this case, the one source we have is well-accepted, uncontroversial and widely cited. In other words, it's as close as science can get to the fabled "last word" on a subject, and in addition to being unimpeachable reliable, is almost certainly true in any sense of the word.
I mention this last due to your commentary in the merge discussion above: your statement of fact about racial differences is demonstrably untrue, as even a reading of this highly misleading article can show. It is, in fact, the scientific consensus is that there is no appreciable difference in measurable intelligence between "races" or even ethnicities (and furthermore, that race is an essentially meaningless concept), but significant (if minor) differences between social classes and groups on opposing sides of the "recently oppressed" line of demarcation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I do think that more sources regarding an archaeological perspective on race and intelligence can and should be added to the section being discussed here. I would recommend considering this one, though it is from 1999 and thus may be too old. C. Loring Brace, in addition to the article I just linked, has written about this subject elsewhere too (e.g. this book). IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

My, this has been a busy summer; I don't want to indent this discussion out of the page:

  1. "Any analysis or discussion added to the article must be directly sourced to an RS." That's what I meant. Sorry if I need to clarify my points a bit.
  2. Interesting points. (I wouldn't really say that I'm "new" to Wikipedia as much as I may be a casual user. :P)
  3. To qualify my statement on race/IQ differences: it is an empirical fact that, on average, black Americans under-perform white Americans (who average roughly 100 points) on IQ tests by roughly a full standard deviation of around 15 points; this gap persists (perhaps to a smaller extent but still notably) even when controlled for socio-economic status. Now, to acknowledge the elephant in the room - yes, racial discrimination in the United States has resulted in contemporary socio-economic setbacks for black Americans, which I will concede have to account for at least part of the gap; I also fully understand that race is largely disavowed in anthropological taxonomy. However, although there is more genetic variation within than between "races," this doesn't mean genetic distances between black and white populations in the United States are not significant. A modest correlation has been observed between latitudinal genetic distances and IQ, supporting an evolutionary explanation for IQ differences between nations; before this study, there was a scientific consensus that genes explain a small but noteworthy part of this variation. Scientists who have studied the black-white US gap have not yet reached a consensus; it's plausible that at least a small part of it could be explained by genetic variation.

DrPepper47 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you're now just explicitly pushing scientific racism based on some -frankly- rather shitty evidence, what does any of this have to do with archeological data? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That was only a response (albeit late) to your last comment in this section; I am posting my next response in the scientific racism section. DrPepper47 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Superfluous article?[edit]

As most of the text is clearly trying to explain why there is no such thing as a connection between external morphology and intelligence in humans, the article could just be "See Race. There is no evidence of a connection between race and intelligence." The text from here could be shortened and put there as part of the controversies about race.

It could also be put under "Political uses of the IQ Test in the 20s century" here History of IQ Testing or something similar, to preserve the precious research done on the matter.

/!\ rant /!\ Alternative text: "Any Neanderthalian was smarter than you are." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibidibabidi (talkcontribs) 03:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Bibidibabidi (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy[edit]

(I am posting here since the page is locked and I did not have an account, but I still wanted to point this out before I forget, please feel free to remove if that's not the right way.) In the "adoption studies" section, it is said that Tizard et al. (1972) tested Black, White, west Indian and mixed children on four different tests. In fact, if I read the study well, no Black children were part of the study. Also, they only report 3 tests, not 4, and it might be worth noting that two of them were on verbal skills and one was non-verbal, the latter being the one showing a significant difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antovigo (talkcontribs) 23:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Antovigo:I'll look into it and fix it if I can verify what you're saying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, having read into this, you are not correct. The "West Indian" children are black; this was just the editor who wrote the section being somewhat less specific. The test results table shows only three tests, so I've made that change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! As a non-native English speaker I did not know the expression West Indian and understood they were people from the western part of India. However the article still mentions "Africa and West India", which is not exactly true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antovigo (talkcontribs) 08:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem at all! I've removed the reference to "African", so it should be good now. Thank you for pointing this out, and welcome to Wikipedia! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2018[edit]

Please change '1.1' to '1.2' in the section "United States test scores" I dont have any sources, but if 1 is 15 then 1.2 is 18. X tomcat x (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Standard deviations don't work that way. For example, look at this example. Going from 1 to 2 standard deviations from the mean is a decrease of roughly 0.2 units, whereas going from 2 to 3 standard deviations is roughly a 0.05 unit decrease. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Group differences and scientific consensus[edit]

@User:MPants at work:

You are absolutely right that I do need to parse my words more carefully. I did not intend to imply that the full standard deviation persisted when controlled for socioeconomic status or that the Roth study supported that. When I said that it “persists (perhaps to a smaller extent but still notably) even when controlled for socio-economic status,” I meant that there is still a perhaps reduced but still notable racial gap when controlled for socio-economic status. I did also say that socioeconomic disparities have to account for at least part of the gap, but ignoring that – I now recognize my serious faults in failing not only to articulate my own point but also to cite any evidence. I only had access to the abstract for the Roth 2001, so I recognize my error in failing to investigate it more carefully and recognizing the potential for error in its estimate.
Nonetheless, the APA stated that the “Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites” on intelligence tests (with the caveat however that the gap may have shortened in recent generations,) that it does not simply reflect socio-economic differences, and that caste- or culture-based explanations have little direct empirical support.
I’ll take it on good faith that you did not intend any insult, and I’ll apologize for my comment – it was passive-aggressive and foolish on my part, thus completely out of place. However, accusations of racism are very serious to make and serve to foster resentment if made lightly or without substantiation. What have I suggested that fits such a charge? And how am I “pushing” it?
I understand that ethnicity is not the same thing as race, and I did not unduly neglect epistemological problems facing scientific conceptions of “race” or intelligence. Although I may have jumped the gun by calling Rindermann et al’s survey a “consensus” (given the low response rate), I never stated that the studies were conclusive – only suggestive.
I never intended to imply that the Snyderman and Rothman study summarizes the current state of psychology; rather I cited it because it was one of the last known surveys of scientific opinion on the issue. To reiterate, the APA and respected experts such as Hunt and Haier have stated since that the causes of racial differences in intelligence test scores are not definitively known. Do you have any evidence to refute this?

DrPepper47 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you honestly expect that you could claim you "did not intend to imply" something which you had previously stated both explicitly and forcefully, and I would not immediately spot that as a bald-faced lie? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for more citations[edit]

The citations are somewhat old. These are suggestions for newer sources written by authorities - would they be acceptable in this article?

I don't like that groups or regions that today suffer from low IQ are pinpointed so often in this article ("subsahara" is mentioned 11 times, and Africa(n) 30 times). But why not mention ethnicities and regions that have extraordinarily strong IQ, for example Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence and East Asians? And why not mention their average IQ? Would such an addition be deleted? (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)