User talk:Nick Connolly/RaceIQEssay

Nick, Bravo on a good start. A few initial comments: you use "IQ" rather than "intelligence." I think these terms are different, and that it is better to use IQ as you do, but we would need to rename the article. Also, I agree that we need to be clear about debates among psychologists who are experts in IQ tests. I believe that fringe theories and pseudoscience often begin when a scholar trained in one field (e.g. psychology) makes claims concerning a different field (e.g. sociology or population genetics). So I think disciplinary boundaries have to be raised as an issue: a PhD. in psychology is an authority on psychology but no an authority on population genetics or human evolution. If genetics is brought into the discussion, the notable authorities should be geneticists - either biologists or biological anthropologists. If socio-economic status is brought into the picture, the notable authorities are sociologists although people in other fields as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

genetic race and intelligence link

"The actual content of the article is a description of prominent people who have asserted a genetic race and intelligence link, what evidence they used and what their many critics said."

This characterization short changes those critics and the seriousness of the debate. The best example is Flynn. --Legalleft (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Good point. I think I need to expand that a little. Thanks. Nick Connolly (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]