Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 62

This is an archive of past discussions about Race and intelligence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Environment causes IQ gap?

In the article it says for example:

"Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has sought to fight racism. On several occasions he publicly debated Arthur Jensen and William Shockley arguing that environmental factors could explain the black-white IQ gap."

Do environment problems cause a gap or does the gap cause environment problems? Or do environment problems not improve because of a gap? --Jagz 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Are you making a specific suggestion or just observing the nature of the debate? Deepening on who you talk to the notion that "a gap causes environmental problems" is considered anything from "remotely possible" to "flat out racist." To put it in stark terms: what you're saying is that we need to seriously consider the idea that the impacts on health with respect to race the poor quality of public schools in minority neighborhoods etc. are caused by black people having low IQ. Someone like R. Lynn might take such an idea seriously... but, in most academic circles, it'll get you laughed out of the room. (As happened to Watson) ...Or am I misunderstanding your point? futurebird 14:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "environment" here does not specifically refer to pollution or health problems. What it means is: do impoverished conditions lead to a lower IQ, or does a lower IQ tend to lead to poverty? Also, does an innately lower IQ tend to keep people from rising out of the impoverished conditions that they may have been born into? If you are going to comment, try not to be overcome by your emotions. --Jagz 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Bad schools an inequalities in health care area function of poverty and in some cases racism. These are also forces that make it hard for people to get out of poverty. Maybe I still don't understand what you're getting at here... What are "impoverished conditions" if not conditions with a bad environment with bad schools, pollution and at times racism? futurebird 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, is it "racism" that has caused black Africa to remain underdeveloped since "time immemorial"? Is it only because of poverty that they have failed to achieve anything of lasting value, such as inventing the wheel or written language? If so, then the question is, why are they poor? Why are they poor now, and why were they 2000 years ago, or 100 000 years ago? They've had all the time in the world to rise above poverty (even more so than other races, as they supposedly evolved from migrating Africans), yet they haven't. They surely didn't before the white man came to Africa. The only traces of civilization in black Africa today is where the white man has built schools, hospitals, roads, wells, etc.. Electric Eye 01:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you understand what I mean by "environment". Also, I am not necessarily focusing on the United States. --Jagz 19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Back in the day, explorers used to say that Japanese man will never amount to anything. "They conform themselves with too little" they said. Today, they say that the Japanese are rich because they save a lot, "they conform themselves with little..." so they can save! The problem with these explanations is that they are biased. The explanations rely on cultural prejudices. There is really no clear mechanism (to say it nicely) that would imply simultaneous causality between these variables. Brusegadi 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else mentioned that this sort of stuff could get you laughed out of the room... I was feeling as though I was the only one with that kind of opinion :P. I think the main reason why the "chicken and the egg" issue is not a problem is because that is a perfect example of why conclusions that genetics or environment represent a sole contributor to intelligence are silly. Just as modern scientists have come to realize that genetics and environment are inseparably intertwined, so too have others realized that the argument for chicken or egg is also just as pointless: the reason is that they both developed at once. Neither came first, just as neither genes nor environment represent a separate influence on intelligence: this is why any attempt to separate them is hopelessly confounded.
131.104.235.213 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

I disagree that this topic is humorous. --Jagz 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Humorous?? what? How...? futurebird 18:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of this discussion because it's not about which came first, its about what causes what. Sorry I couldn't think of a better analogy. See Circular cause and consequence. Also see Nature versus nurture in the IQ debate. --Jagz 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I got that aspect of what you were saying. I don't think the nature nurture debate has much relevance, since we're talking about such small differences between groups-- and those groups have different environments. If you wanted to answer the nature nurture question you'd need to somehow create a study absent the influence of racism. I mean even controlling for poverty can't do that. The real question is how does this relate to changes for the article? futurebird 19:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion will indicate that there needs to be a change to the article. The quote I included above only addresses one side of the issue. --Jagz 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think we should add? futurebird 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know yet. I'll take a look at the article after the rewrite. --Jagz 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nature/Nurture is considered outmoded scientifically; although, I am sure the history of the debate would make for a decent article on its own.

131.104.235.213 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

Are you saying that an IQ gap cannot cause differences in economic prosperity? --Jagz 22:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jagz, if you mean a gap between two people, yeah, that could happen, but for a whole "race" ? Not so much. Though, how will we ever know as long as there is racism? JJJamal 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that JJJamal is right, it is a commonplace in quantitative analsysis that correlation does not indicate causation. One would need separate evidence to make a causal argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Correlation often does not mean causation, however if socioeconomic status is strongly correlated to IQ on the individual level it will also be strongly correlated for any group containing the individuals as long as there is not significant overlap. There have been numerous studies showing that race and intelligence correlate in many different communities around the world. Numerous studies have also been done that establish a strong correlation between genetics and intelligence (I can look up and specify studies if needed). These studies include twin studies in which identical twins were raised apart. If you believe in either evolution or even microevolution to the degree that intelligent design theorists believe, then you would have to acknowledge that genetics play some role in the traits of the offspring and traits that favor individuals in a population will influence the average occurance of the trait in the entire population. Saying race does not correlate to IQ in many communities would be like saying it does not correlate to skin color in many communities. Myrik (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article

Please list your suggestions for improving the article here. --Jagz 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Trim it. This is the biggest one, there is simply too much information in this article.
Refocus the article on the mainstream debate about the importance and interplay between diffent environmental influences (breast feeding, education, poverty, culture, language etc.) rather than fringe theories about the innate intellectual abilities of different races. Even with all of the material we have these topics are not covered adequately.
Consider renaming per the discussion above.

futurebird 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article would most definitely need to be renamed in order to limit the scope as you have described above. What do you want to call it? --Jagz 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that if the scope of the article is limited as you have described above, the article will be viewed by many as being biased. If you are sincere about resolving the dispute over this article, please suggest a new name for the article that would be more specific to your suggested scope. As an alternate idea, consider moving the article to Wikinfo. --Jagz 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: FB comments, I agree with 1 & 3 and agree to explore the options under #2. Clarifying #2 may help us to develop #3. --Kevin Murray 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is not any substantial progress made towards resolving the dispute over this article, including a possible new name for it, I will request that the article be unlocked for editing. I'm starting to question whether some of the regular editors are serious about resolving the dispute. --Jagz 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand why progress has stalled while we consider the focus of the article and a new name. But, I'd like to see some rapid resolution and then participation again on a section by section effort. --Kevin Murray 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, lets contact the people in that thread. futurebird 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the article be renamed "Group intelligence". --Jagz 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you think the article would cover groups such as, by age, income, sex, country, height, education level, etc.? All in one article?futurebird 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sex and intelligence is already a separate article. Height and intelligence doesn't seem legitimate, maybe cranial capacity correlates with height though. Since race is currently ill-defined genetically and no one seems willing to come up with a definition to use in the article or within sections of the article, "group" would be a better word. The answer to your question is yes. --Jagz 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a particularly correct way to 'name' the title. "Race and Intelligence" deals with the particular issue of race and whatever connotations that raises, and the relative intelligence (as correct or incorrect as that may be). I think several of the sections (such as the whole Stereotype section) are just repeats of other wiki articles and poorly fitted in purely for the purpose of creating a super article. Many could be culled and a subsection left at the bottom for See Also related articles (into which they should be neatly apportioned). Indeed many already have their own wiki's that go into great depth the particular elements included that are covered haphazardly within this article. Some subheadings appear inserted purely for the purpose of a single sentence+ref in order to boost a particular POV within the article.--Koncorde 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the article has to be named and we are trying to come up with a better name. The Caste section in the article for example is not about race, it is about groups. A race can be considered a group. --Jagz 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No one uses "group" and "race" interchangeably. Look, this whole obsession with the idea of "race" being genetically or taxonomically shoddy is irrelevant to the title of the article. Even if it's true that race isn't genetically or taxonomically viable, this doesn't mean that an article about "race and intelligence" is somehow beyond the pale of encyclopedic inquiry. Money and wealth are social constructs but that doesn't make it useless or illogical to examine correlations between them and some other variable(s) if in fact such a correlation is significant and has been widely studied/published on. This article, whatever it is now, was originally (and is supposed to be) about the correlation between intelligence (as measured by IQ tests and so forth) and what most people call "race". It doesn't matter if Wikipedia editors can't agree among themselves as to what "race" is, the purpose of this article is to accurately represent the respectable literature that has been published on its correlation with intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with O'Quinlan on the naming bit. However I also agree with Jagz, but not for the reason he stipulates. Namely the fact that the topic wavers quite considerably on the matter and does blur the lines between several 'groups' vs 'races' vs 'ethnicity' vs 'socio economic' etc that aren't strictly speaking "race" (which is kind of O'Quinlans point). I understand their inclusion as the topic is trying to create a 'whole' overview - but really there should be (if anything) seperate topics or more cleanly formatted and dealt with in a concise manner. A thorough appraisal of each work isn't required. I'd like to have a go reformatting and rejigging sections, but obviously the block is preventing that.--Koncorde 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using "group" and "race" interchangeably. The point is that an article titled "Group intelligence" could include a discussion of race and intelligence, but it does not have to be limited to a discussion of racial differences. --Jagz (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought one of the main problems was that the article as it stands is too long and has too much information while lacking focus; changing it to an even broader subject would only make it harder to achieve any kind of focus, concision, or accuracy. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if we create an article called "Group intelligence" and move all the stuff from this article to that one that is not strictly about race and intelligence, like the Caste section. --Jagz (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here. The fact is that race is a social construct and not a biological one. Race as a biological idea as it is usually defined does not fit the observed physical or genetic variation we see in indigenous human populations, because we see clinality more than discontinuity. When one samples the global human population from distant parts of the world, the intermediate populations are absent (ie people who show attributes that are intermediate), and so much of the gradation is missing. This can give a false sense of distinctiveness between people. So when we look at places like North America, where populations have been sampled from disparate parts of the world (mainly the Americas, West Africa, Europe and East Asia) the differences appear distinct and discontinuous, this is particularly true of the USA where such things as anti-miscegenation laws and "race lines" were enforced (for example compare the USA with Brazil). Because people "believed" in the concept of "biological race", then real discrimination existed (and still exists). This discrimination is manifested in many ways (e.g. lack of equal access to education, inequal access to health care and safe living environments (both physical and biochemical)). Clearly the general socialised racism that we see includes an assumption that tests designed by and for the dominant social group, that use this specific group's social and cultural norms as a reference, somehow measure some general concept of "intelligence". As Jerome Kagan says in his essay "The Magical Aura of the IQ" (1971) "If contemporary black psychologists had accepted the assignment of constructing the first intelligence test, they probably would have made a different choice." So the article should be about race and intelligence, but should concentrate on how sociologists and psychologists understand these phenomena, and especially how they understand the so called "test score gap" i.e. that it is understood as a product of social inequality and cultural differences. Just because "biological race" doesn't work, it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant as a social concept, nor does it mean that a well researched subject is irrelevant as an encyclopaedia article. If this article needs to have a change of name, then it should be changed to something like "Race and the test score gap" or something like that, because there is a lot of dispute about what "intelligence" is and if/how it could be measured/compared between different cultural groups at all. Alun (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Brusegadi (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your POV on the subject like it was the final word on the subject. The fact is that a lot of people disagree with you that race is merely a social construct. I can agree with you that perhaps within countries race is used a social construct to classify people within their country but not from a world perspective. Please see: [1][2] [3] Also, please stop using the article to support your anti-American agenda. If you wish to keep the article name "Race and intelligence" you must include the POV that there is an inherent/biological/genetic difference in the intelligence/IQ of races; this is necessary to have a NPOV article. --Jagz (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jagz, I don't need non-academic journalistic sources to "explain" genetics to me, I have a BSc in genetics and an MSc in biotechnology. As for my comments about race as a social construct, that's what anthropologists tell us and is perfectly well known, I could cite many sources that make this specific claim. You claim that I am sharing my "pov", but actually I'm just stating what the academic community states. Race is a social construct, this can be verified from a great many reliable sources. The fact is that no one disputes that there are genetic/physical differences between people from different parts of the world, but this does not amount to any biologically recognised concept of "race" and your links do not contradict what I said above. I really don't care what you personally believe, and I really don't trust non-academic sources like the New York Times or PBS, journalists are not experts and often get their facts wrong. This is why we have a specific guideline which states that we should avoid using the mass media when citing science. See In science, avoid citing the popular press. As for your comment about "the final word", well I am entitled to contribute to this discussion and I never claimed that my comment was a concluding one. Your suggestion regarding renaming the article is not going to gain any sort of consensus, so you might as well drop it. Furthermore there is absolutely no reason why we need to "include the POV that there is an inherent/biological/genetic difference in the intelligence/IQ of races" unless it can be shown to be anything other than a fringe or tiny minority point of view. Remember than the neutrality policy clearly states

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

As for your accusations of anti-Americanism, I'd appreciate it if you could stick to commenting on the article, please remember comment on content not on users. Thanks. Alun (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The POV you're referring to which is basically the hereditarian POV (Lynn, Rushton, Gottfredson, etc.) is already discussed in this article. And race did start as an empirical, social construct. The discussions as to whether it has any biological significance in the light of DNA mapping studies are very recent.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And thirded with Alun and Ramdrake. The issue is that both "Race" and "Intelligence" have undetermined values. The article should represent all those values (or link to relevant sections) rather than renaming the topic for an undetermined purpose. Think the accusations of anti-Americanism meanwhile would be best left out of the topic.--Koncorde (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we are overly caught-up in semantics. Call it "race" or otherwise, there are recognizable physical variances among populations which have developed over time around the world. Challenging the accuracy of the historic word which we use to is a fairly low priority. It seems that trying to redefine the wording of a topic borders on original research and point of view. The definition of the terms White, Black, Asian etc. are better left to other articles on those topics, except where it directly impacts the understanding of this specific topic. Rightly or wrongly, most people equate IQ measurement with intelligence, again it is not up to us to determine whether that is right or wrong, but we should present the facts for our readers. I think that it is time to table this issue while we move on to improving the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird suggested focusing the article on environmental influences but that can't be done without renaming the article. If the article is to be kept NPOV with its current name, it must discuss more than environmental influences. The average reader is not going to read the whole article because it is way too long. Also, the average reader without prior knowledge is going to be confused as to what the POVs are on this subject because they are so interwoven in each section. Also as far as I can see, there is not sufficient need nor space for the Caste section in this article. --Jagz (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why can it not be done without renaming the article? You need to support this with evidence and a firm explanation because as far as I can see you provide absolutely no reason why we need to change the title of the article at all, just an unsupported statement, but Futurebird is quite right. Cheers. Alun (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to change the title but the article needs to present a worldwide view and present all significant viewpoints. The present title of the article doesn't allow for limiting the scope as you suggest. Also, what is considered mainstream debate on this subject is deceptive; for example, "many geneticists, wary of fueling discrimination and worried that speaking openly about race could endanger support for their research, are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings."[4] --Jagz (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither I nor Futurebird have ever suggested limiting the scope of the article. Above you state that Futurebird has suggested that focusing the article on environment, this is a reasonable suggestion considering environmental considerations are those most associated with test score gaps. Focusing on mainstream research is exactly what the article should do according to NPOV. Claiming that this is an attempt to "limit the scope of the article" is a misrepresentation of what Futurebird suggested. Furthermore you continue to cite irrelevant non-academic sources. The NYTimes article you link to is not relevant to the concept of "race and intelligence", so why cite it? It seems to have been written by someone with at best a perfunctory understanding of science, there is a vast amount of work ongoing regarding human genetic variation, most scientists don't couch their language in terms of "race" because they know that the word is ambiguous with no proper scientific meaning or credibility. Even Neil Risch, who supports "racialised medicine" and the classification of humans into "racial groups" for medical purposes, can't actually define what a "race" is when questioned "Interviwer: Let's talk about the former, the genetic basis of race. As you know, I went to a session for the press at the ASHG [American Society for Human Genetics] meeting in Toronto, and the first words out of the mouth of the first speaker were 'Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races.' Risch: What is your definition of races? If you define it a certain way, maybe that's a valid statement. There is obviously still disagreement.'"[5] So the guy can't even define what a "race" is himself, and he wants to categorise people into races for "medical" reasons. By the way Risch is obviously one of those people who is doing research into human genetic variation, and he doesn't seem to be having any problems with getting research funding. This is why scientists avoid ideas like "race", because they are almost impossible to define. The real reasons for geneticists to avoid racial categories are straightforward and simple then, races are almost impossible to identify, and genetic variation is not mainly distributed at the "racial" level.

Because of the history of misuse of genetics ideas, geneticists have a special responsibility to examine carefully their use of racial and ethnic categories in their research... When the use of racial or ethnic categories in research is deemed necessary, researchers can avoid overgeneralization by using labels that are as specific as possible. Today many genetic investigations label populations with the same loose terms used by the public (Sankar and Cho 2002; Clayton 2003; Collins 2004; Comstock et al. 2004). But labels such as “Hispanic,” “Black,” “Mexican American,” “White,” “Asian,” “European,” or “African” can have ambiguous or contradictory meanings among researchers, research subjects, and the general public. Use of such broad labels without careful definitions can impair scientific understanding and imply that distinctions between socially defined populations are genetically well established. Genetics researchers often rely on the categories specified in the U.S. census—encouraged by regulations that urge diversity of study populations—but these categories are used today mainly for administrative and social purposes and were not designed for genetics research. The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research by the Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group

There's a more important observation here, this article is not about concepts of "biological race", it is about the observed test score gap between some socially constructed racial groups and the causes of this gap. To address this subject we need to discuss what mainstream academic researchers are saying and not what non-expert journalists are saying. This is an encyclopaedia and not a news website. So let's address the issues as they are seen by scientists and not by journalists. See also "Genetics for the human race": Nature Genetics Reviews and "Is Race "Real"?": A forum of the Social Science Research Council. Alun Alun (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not a science journal. --Jagz (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to appologise. Of course it's not a science journal, science journals publish original research and we don't, as per our policy on no original research. We do however publish work from reliable sources and science journals are reliable sources for science, and as I point out above, newspapers are not reliable sources for science. This article is about science, is it not? Alun (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So can we actually get this unprotected at some point in order to allow some simple changes to be made to its presentation? The intro alone could be improved for clarity quite a lot as it's currently reads like a meandering dissertation intro--Koncorde (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The agreement has been to work on a section at a time in a sandbox. When we have a consensus then the admin will post it to the page. The first section went very well, but then we've gotten bogged down in the title. Let's get back to work! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jagz provided me with one such link. Perhaps a full list of sandbox links would be useful?--Koncorde (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

can we clarify what we are talking about?

I just want to clarify something here. If I'm misunderstanding the dispute then please tell me, but this is what I think the disagreement is.

Jagz thinks that if the article has a name change then it should not mention the word "race". I get the impression that this is because he believes that if we use the word "race" then we must be referring to a "biological construct", he seems to think that referring to race as a social construct is somehow incorrect (he states above [addressing me] "lot of people disagree with you that race is merely a social construct", although of course they are no disagreeing with me, but with mainstream anthropology, and why "merely"?). So Jagz thinks that if we use the term "race" in the title we must include mention of so called biological reasons for test score gaps. He claims that to ignore biological theories is to breach neutrality. On the other hand he claims that Futurebird wants to "limit the scope" of the article. Is that an accurate precis of the position?
On the other hand I don't think that Futurebird has any problem with use of the word "race" as a social construct, that is that race is used in the more accepted anthropological sense as a socio-cultural group. She wants the article to concentrate on environmental factors that affect test score differences. This is because the overwhelming majority of academic research focuses on this and we should mirror what is mainstream in academia, as per the neutrality policy. Nowhere does Futurebird say that she wants to limit the scope of the article, just that it should reflect what most academics say.
So this boils down to undue weight unless I am mistaken. On the one hand Jagz thinks that we must mention hereditarian ideas of intelligence, presumably the ideas of people like Jensen and Rushton, if we discuss "race". On the other Futurebird thinks that these are tiny minority points of view that therefore do not need to be addressed. So isn't the question, does the idea of the heredity of intelligence at the "racial" level represent a minority, or a tiny minority point of view? If it is a minority point of view then it should get a small mention, if it is a tiny minority point of view, then it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I just don't know what the difference is between a minority and a tiny minority point of view.
The contention that race is ipso facto a biological construct, as Jagz seems to be implying (and if I misunderstand here then I appologise), is demonstrably incorrect, and a reading of any half decent anthropological text will confirm this.
Why not make some suggestions regarding what to call the article? Alun (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Race and the test score gap

Social status and academic performance

How about we call it "Race and IQ", since intelligence and IQ are not exactly the same thing. That would also save us some trouble in trying to equate and conflate "intelligence" per se (which many people assess on a variety of factors other than test scores, etc.) with a host of other factors (e.g. economic performance, health, etc.)—not to say that IQ isn't also related to these things, but IQ is a more robust and tangible concept than intelligence and, because of this, it seems we would more easily be able to focus on the specific evidence of difference in IQ measure by race (which is the issue whence this article stems) without getting bogged down into tangential disputes over race reality and IQ vs. intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on your suggested article name. It would help limit the scope of the article since it is already too long. --Jagz (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
While I don't have a problem per se with the title "Race and IQ", it does leave out a great deal of research that has used different ways to assess people, for example school test results, developmental progression etc. I think this is why people talk of the "test score gap", because this topic covers many tests that are not actually IQ tests. Alun (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "Race and IQ". It will help cut the article down to a reasonable length. --Jagz (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But this does not solve the problem that a great deal of research and writing on this subject has used tests that are not actually IQ tests. I don't know what you mean by a "reasonable length". What do you propose for related work that uses non IQ test result data? We cannot have lots of articles each for different types of test (like one for "Race and IQ" and another for "Race and SAT" and another for "Race and university graduation"). This is clearly a single research subject, and therefore it clearly should all be together in a single article. Can you make a more constructive comment, possibly a suggestion of your own? I'm happy to go with any consensus, but I doubt that "Race and IQ" is going to fly. Let's try to get a reasonably long list of suggestions and then debate the merits or lack thereof of each? You might like "Race and IQ" at the moment, but someone might come allong with a really good suggestion that everyone can agree on. Let's just all have a think about some good titles and decide later? Cheers, Alun (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I like 'Racre and IQ', but you are right, it does mess things up from the perspective of other proxies. I'll see if I think of anything. Brusegadi (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not writing a book. --Jagz (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Racial intelligence" or "Racial IQ"? If race is meaningless then, "Group intelligence" or "Group IQ". --Jagz (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When ethnologists deal with race, they are talking about a breeding population, this is what all the research is into. Nobody can dispute the idea that a breeding population displays differing traits, people here are not understanding the scholarly debate at all. Thus consider race=breeding population and everything becomes clearer and less charged. Lobojo (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is totally incorrect. Ethnologists do not deal with "breeding populations", biologists do. Ethnologists deal with ethnic groups, which are socio-cultural groups, group membership is not determined by membership of a biological population.[6] When biologists talk about breeding populations they usually refer to them as "populations" and not "races" (although the term "population" is often not well defined in biology). When biologists discuss "race", they are nearly always discussing subspecies, a completely different concept.[7] This is easily illustrated. It is obvious that people from Great Britain do not form a "breeding population" with people from say Italy. This is obvious because a person from Great Britain is not as likely to meet and reproduce with a person from Italy as they are to meet and reproduce with a person from Great Britain. The definition of a population is usually something like A group of individuals of the same species living close enough together than any member of the group can potentially mate with any other member, as soon as we introduce organisms that are less likely to reproduce with the population, then we assume that this is due to migration between groups. It is therefore clear that a "breeding population" of any terrestrial organism will tend to be very localised. If you want to read a good paper that discusses what a population is then I can recommend What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. On the other hand most people would accept that British and Italian people are part of the same "race", but clearly they are not part of the same "breeding population". Furthermore, even Great Britain does not represent a "breeding population", nor even Wales. A potential "breeding population" will comprise only of a sub set of those organisms that tend to come into direct contact with each other frequently. One should think of populations as theoretical constructs that biologists, and especially population geneticists use for the purposes of mathematical modelling, they are not necessarily accurate representations of a natural order. On the other hand "race" is generally understood as a social construct by anthropologists,[8] there is no ambiguity here, whatever Jagz says, but we do need to mention this is the article obviously. One should not get confused between the concepts of race, ethnicity and population, the anthropologist Jonathan Marks claims that these terms are often erroneously used interchangeably. The problem here is not necessarily with using the word "race", it is with using the word intelligence, or IQ. Alun (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we should change the word "intelligence" to "IQ" or "IQ scores" which is more precise and accurate. Second, when people discuss "race" they are referring to race as a self-reported category i.e. collective self-representation - not a biological entity; the best research on this matter looks at social and economic factors. There is a solid body of scientific research on genetic factors in IQ, but these are based on twin studies - I have cited several on this page - and not "race." I suggest one article on genetics and IQ drawing on the twin studies, and another on SES and IQ. This is the mose effective way to cover the two major and separate discussions in the scholarly literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002"

Does this take into account recent immigration from Africa? Hundreds of thousands of people have come from sub-Saharan Africa in recent decades, just over the time period that this graph shows the 'gap closing'. The people who came tended to be very well educated, and probably very high average IQs. Asian Americans are listed as having average IQ around 105 but recent African immigrants have even higher education levels. Top universities estimate that most of their black students are actually recent immigrants or descended from recent immigrants, rather than long term native blacks (see Nigerian American ) Peoplesunionpro (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support your theory?futurebird (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Theory? I asked a question, explaining factual reasons why it was worth clarifying. If you're looking for sources on the statements I made about recent immigration, just look on wikipedia. No theorizing needed. Peoplesunionpro (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add something to the article you can't do your own original research and synthesis of data, you need to quote some scientists writing in a respectable journal who has this theory. If it is your own invention, then you need to get published in a respectable journal first. Personally, I think your theory is bunk. The number of immigrants from Africa is far to low of have an impact. Test score gains occur even in cities with no immigration. So, I guess you'll need to find another way to prove that black people are inferior. I don't understand why this topic makes some people so desperate. The science just isn't there. futurebird (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Worst article in wikipedia?

Is this the very worst long article in the encyclopedia? I remember reading this about two years ago, and I was impressed at how coherent and neutral it was despite being about such a controversial and hurtful subject. There were clear illustrations, and the different explanations for the differences were described in detail. The various criticisms of the field were also discussed in detail.

I don't know who is responsible for destroying this article but it seems fair to say that these people don't have much in the way of IQ themselves.

This whole train-wreck is beyond repair. I suggest reverting to a very old version and then trying to incorporate some of the current version into to the new one. Lobojo (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that reverting the article to an older version is something that should be considered. --Jagz (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the July 2005 version of the article, which was a featured article candidate, and it seemed to be better than the current article. --Jagz (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some merit to this idea. I advocated a few months back that we begin with the version which preceded the division into multiple articles, but I would be interested in revieiwing the featured article version as a starting point if we feel that the current version is unworkable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This article was indeed excellent at one time. Not sure it's hurtful, though, as people who as individuals have low IQs don't likely read wikipedia. Unless you mean the cherished beliefs of the people who ruined this article being hurt, that's surely true. 72.220.172.147 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been too much of an attempt to blame IQ differences on environmental effects. It would be an amazing coincidence if it was found that the indigenous peoples in each geographic region of the world had the same average IQ. It would disprove evolution. How can the differences in physical appearance of indigenous peoples in different geographic regions be explained by creationism alone? A lot of creationists believe that people started out as one man and one woman. Are we supposed to believe that evolutionary changes are limited to the physical attributes we are capable of seeing? While environmental conditions may have an effect on individuals, it is also true that environmental conditions can cause evolutionary changes in groups of individuals. --Jagz (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and as the experts in this field have written extensively in the relevant journals, research bears that hypothesis out. And the purpose of this article, which is to neutrally present that mainstream opinion, has been subverted. I think this article is truly an embarrassment. One hopes science will win in the end (it always has) but when ideologically-motivated people are willing to tirelessly subvert the process you have to wonder. Is there someone or some process we can start to get this reverted to the pre-zealot-graffiti version?70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

~~::I agree. Roll it back. There was a lot of work done to make it a good article, but they gave up and I don't blame them. That was a lot of work ruined. - Jeeny ^(talk) 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)~~

Background

The background section needs to go almost completely. This is an encylopedia aritlce not a term paper. Just for example, this is not the article to discuss the relative merits as race as a social constuct. That belongs elsewhere. Putting it in here is bogus. The first thing the article must to is describe the observed racial differnces in IQ, and provide the various competing therories. That must be in the lead, that is what a lead is. Lobojo (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. A lot of scientists disagree with this research based specifically on the disputability of the relevance of race as a biological concept; others dispute this research based on the concatenation of studies which used different definitions of "race". So, indeed, some background is quite necessary.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, which is fine. It needs a section describing this, it is the strcture that is the problem. Lobojo (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It seems to me that the usefulness of 'race' is highly questioned. That should also be at intro. Brusegadi (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be in the artilce and the lead, I agree, what I'm saying is the problems we are having here are partly caused by the fact that this is basicly a termpaper writen by 200 people each using there own plan. The first thing to agree on is (a) stick to the MOS, (ie, no lengthy "background") and (b) agree on a basic layout for the article, then fill in the sections. Otherwise you have the chaotic shitstorm we have here. Lobojo (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that this is "bogus" because (1) it discusses race as a social construct, (2) it reads like a term paper, (3) it is written by 200 people. This is not a logical or persuasive argument. first of all, many wikipedia articles are written by hundreds of people. Secondly, what do you mean by "term paper" and why is it bad? in my experience a term paper is a w:::ell-researched study of the academic treatment of a topic, held to high standards - sounds good to me; you must mean something else but what do you mean? By the way words like "shitstorm" are not going to impress or persuade anyone here - please try to talk like an adult. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the article is OK as it stands? I am suggesting the reason it is so finger-licking bad is partly because it strays all over the place, and nobody agrees on the structure, the first thing to do is agree on the structure. This is an ENCYCLOPDIA it is not a collction of college notes. Things around the subject are to be linked in, the subject must be kept in focus. Lobojo (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have followed the talk you would know I have made several suggestions for improving the article. Be that as it may, now you seem to be equating "a collection of college notes" with "a term paper." You either write lousy term papers, or go to a college with no standards. A good term paper is not a collection of notes. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need to be unpleasant just because I use the word "shitstorm"? Was that really called for? Why do wikipedia editors have such a proclivity to patronizing others? I wasn't trying to impress anyone, I was just being conversational. I suppose you aren't trying to impress anyone with your "impressive" pseudo-intellectual user page. Oh you read Freud do you, and Derrida. You must be a very clever person then. Why do some people here just latch onto anything they can do put others down, it makes me sad. Lobojo (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"If I followed the link", I wasn't attacking your ideas, I was merely suggesting my own, I can't believe you are making such a fuss about the mere suggestion that people sit down and plan out a serious article, that follows the MOS and provided a readable precis of the research on this subject. The first job is to agree on a layout. Why are you being so unpleasant at the mere suggestion? Lobojo (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

All my comments have been bsased on your comments on this page. You opened this discussion with a rude comment. Your suggestion was unconstructive and amounted to pushing the POV that races have some kind of objective reality, and that discussion of their social construction should be removed. That is POV pushing and unconstructive. When you have a constructive suggestion I assure you we are all ears. As to my so-called unpleasentness, I continue to insist that a good term paper is not a mere collection of notes. You still claim this? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was rude about this shitty article; you were rude about me. I never said that! I just said it needs its own section, in an organised article!! There are parts of this article that dont make ANY sense on ANY level, there are whole sections that have been shredded up so many times that there is no coherance at all. This artilce is broken and needs to be redone. Lobojo (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are talking past one another. I was responding to your comment, "this is not the article to discuss the relative merits as race as a social constuct" which states very clearly that you believe, well, that this is not the article to discuss the relative merits as race as a social constuct. You claim you never said that? Please just look to the top of this section. You did indeed say it. In an earlier section you also claimed tat ethnologists think races are breeding populations, which is just absurd. I really do not mean to be rude to you, but yes, you really are pushing a POV and yes, you have so far failed to make any constructive suggestions. As for my being unpleasant, you seem to be upset that I disagree with your claim that a college term paper is a collection of notes. Sorry if this upsets you, but I stand by my disagreement with your claim which I continue to find inane and, to repeat my main point, unconstructive. Does it bother you that I am standing up to your atempts to bully your way around this page? That your vile filth like "shitstorm" and hysterics do not really sway me? Guess what: you just have to deal with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am merely saying that while it should be discussed in proper ormat. This is not the article to discuss this issue at length, no. That belongs in the Race page, don't you agree. Here it needs to be mentioned, but it must not replicate what is already elsewhere. Lobojo (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is enough to say that the mainstream view among scientists is that race is a social construction and provide links to other articles. As a secondary comment, I believe then that we would a separate article that does not use the word race to cover the literature on IQ scores and genetics. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, well no, there is a 50 50 split among anthropolists on the isbsue, as you know. And the biological viewpoint is solidly against the social construct. But I take it you agree with the idea of a root and branch plan for the article? Lobojo (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence for the 50/50 split among anthropologists? Also, when you say "biological viewpoint" are you refering to all biologists (most of whom are not experts on human evolution or genetics) or only those who are experts on human evolution and genetics - and what is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I read it just now on the race page here on wikipedia. The whole field is predicated on the fact. Anyway this is not the point. Do you support my idea or not? Lobojo (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what bit of the article you were reading, but the 50:50 split is from a survey done in 1985. The survey was repeated in 1999 and the result was that 80% of cultural anthropologists and 69% of physical anthropologists disagree with the statement There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens. One should also be aware that the vast majority of anthropologists are cultural anthropologists, physical anthropologists are a very small fraction of anthropologists. See here and here. Cheers, Alun (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed the editing histories of a couple of editors of other articles to this page and what I have found is indeed troubling. The article, IMHO, is an attempt to sling enough fecal material at the subject that it will prevent any reasonable person from understanding the stated subject of the article. I have several questions about this subject which are not being answered by the article as it stands. I would recommend a revert to an earlier article. If a person who is more knowledgeable about this subject than I would contact me, I have some real questions. My questions relate to genetics and biological/ vs. social concepts of race. I know this is perhaps not the forum for a request like this, but the article has left me with more questions than answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

With all due respect, your questions about "race" cannot be answered in this article - it takes the article into a major tangent. But your questions aout race can and are answered by wikipedia - in the Race article. I hope that helps. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)