Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::You can't manufacture precision where it doesn't exist. The convoluted syntax of the proposed title doesn't improve anything. --] (]) 07:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
:::You can't manufacture precision where it doesn't exist. The convoluted syntax of the proposed title doesn't improve anything. --] (]) 07:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes, I agree. The proposed title is clumsy, but the current one is somewhat dishonest. My preference is for the whole article to disappear. It's built on a very shoddy base. ] (]) 08:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes, I agree. The proposed title is clumsy, but the current one is somewhat dishonest. My preference is for the whole article to disappear. It's built on a very shoddy base. ] (]) 08:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
== Two good sources for this article and related articles. ==
Getting to know the other articles in the related category to this article during the ArbCom case alerted me to some authors and sources who don't usually appear in the mainstream professional literature on psychology. And following up on some citations I found in those articles, in turn, helped me find some sources that explain the origin of much of the minority literature on this subject.
* {{classicon|FA}} {{aye}} {{cite book |title=The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund |last=Tucker |first=William H. |authorlink=William H. Tucker |publisher=] |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-252-07463-9 |laysummary=http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/65rwe7dm9780252074639.html |laydate=4 September 2010 |ref=harv }}
* {{classicon|FA}} {{aye}} {{cite book |title=The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology |last=Tucker |first=William H. |authorlink=William H. Tucker |publisher=] |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-252-03400-8 |laysummary=http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/20/cattell |laydate=30 August 2010 |ref=harv }}
I'm very impressed with how thoroughly Tucker cites his vast array of sources and how thoughtfully he describes the context of the different authors, writings, and historical movements he surveys. These books are helpful, reliable secondary sources for this article and for most of the articles in the related categories here on Misplaced Pages. In general, all of the articles within the scope of the topic bans from the recent ArbCom case could be improved if more Wikipedians refer to these sources for further editing of the articles. -- ] (]) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence
The article Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.
Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.
Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
I'll list some sources here, and update it by edits from time to time.
Kenny, Michael G. (2002), "Toward a Racial Abyss: Eugenics, Wickliffe Draper, and the Origins of The Pioneer Fund", Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences 38: 259–283
the sat- and lynn plots
the sat-plots used in this article are misleading. they seem to confirm the national iq-hierarchy as advocated by by lynn and his fellow travelers. however, "south asians" (e.g. indians), who according to lynn & co have average iq of 81, outperform "whites". it also seems to be the case in every country of the western world. clearly, lynn's hypothesis of a genetically induced national iq-hierarchy is shattered. in addition, i do not think sat-plots belong to this article at all as these are not iq-tests.
the plots by lynn and vanhanen give their pov undue weight. it is clear from the "iq differences outside of the usa"-section that their findings can not be trusted.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
In general I agree that most of the plots do not belong, but not because they agree or disagree with the conclusions of various authors. Rather they are generally WP:synth. That is to say, they were constructed using data from various sources, but that construction represents the view of the chart maker, and not necessarily that of the source. Likewise, without a researcher using the data in a study, their inclusion here is dubious at best. aprock (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
South Asians are not a single people but a collection of very different peoples, with vast religious, cultural, and, yes, genetic differences between them. South Asian immigrants to the US or Europe are not a random sample of those populations, so their performance tells us nothing about India as a whole. The SAT charts do not violate WP:Synth, because they are merely graphical representations of data published by the College Board. Each of them was constructed from one dataset.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Inclusion of SAT data here without source supporting their relevance to race and intelligence research is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. aprock (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
i suggest you find out what lynn has to say about the average iq of the indian diaspora. he advocates that also these south asian immigrants have a very low iq-average. not very credible at all. anyway, the sat-plots are a clear case of synth.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with aprock that it's synth to include the sat charts without explaining why they're relevant. Instead of removing the charts though, I think it'd be better to include an explanation of the data in the article and how it's relevant to R&I. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Where could an interested reader go to verify the information that supposedly comes from the College Board? I read the College Board national SAT report each year, and some of the data charts I see on Misplaced Pages don't match the format or data presentation of any College Board publication I have ever seen. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Mustihussain said "i do not think sat-plots belong to this article at all as these are not iq-tests". The SAT has been validated as a good measure of IQ. The intelligence researcher Douglas Detterman at Case Western has published peer reviewed papers showing that the SAT and the ACT are essentially the same as IQ tests, i.e. the SAT and the ACT measure g about as well as IQ tests do (g is the scientific term for IQ-type intelligence). refs:
Frey, M.C., Detterman, D.K. Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability (2004) Psychological Science, 15 (6), pp. 373-378.
Koenig, K.A., Frey, M.C., Detterman, D.K. ACT and general cognitive ability (2008) Intelligence, 36 (2), pp. 153-160.Rafrye (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't speak very well for the reliability of IQ tests then. But anyway these raw data are irelevant for the topic of R&I as the data hasn't been corrected for any factors such as forexample SES - drawing any conclusions about those data in the article is not just SYNTH but OR.·Maunus·ƛ·01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Another way of looking at this, which I learned about from
* ℞ Hopkins, Kenneth D.; Stanley, Julian C. (1981). Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation (sixth ed.). Engelwood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall. ISBN0-13-236273-2. Many parents are unaware that intelligence tests tend to measure primarily scholastic aptitude and that many other cognitive abilities that can be legitimately considered to reflect intelligence and special abilities are untapped.{{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
is that SAT tests and IQ tests are about equally reliable, and about equally loaded on the same construct, which Hopkins and Stanley call "scholastic ability." As far back as Spearman and Terman you can find researchers acknowledging that tests that are largely validated by school performance largely relate to school abilities. They may or may not broadly reflect something that can unambiguously be called "intelligence." (This, by the way, is why I think the article should be retitled with "IQ" as the prominent term, although I certainly agree that the mainstream view of psychometricians—not all psychologists, but psychometricians—is that IQ operationalizes the concept of intelligence. The view of psychologists like Hopkins, Stanley, Sternberg, Gardner, the WAIS-IV authors, and others who point out that IQ and intelligence are not necessarily the same thing must be acknowledged as a prominent, although not unified, dissenting view.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Removal of "IQ differences outside of the USA"
There are multiple issues with this section:
It is primarily based on the work of Lynn, and does not represent mainstream research
Lynn's methodology has come under heavy fire, and is generally not considered conclusive
much of it is based on IQ and Global Inequality, which is not about national IQs, not racial intelligence
the content reads like a he said, she said between Lynn and his critic
Including the content in articles about the books or Lynn seems fine, but including it here is not appropriate. Are there any significant studies besides the methodologically flawed surveys by Lynn et al? If not, I suggest this section be removed, or possibly replaced by a pointer to a discussion of some of the challenges of using IQ tests across cultures.aprock (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Lynn is the pioneer in this field. Whether or not his views are "mainstream" is not relevant as long as they are notable. His data concern IQ differences between nations, but his theoretical framework for explaining the data is explicitly racial. Lynn's conclusions have been published in peer-reviewed journals, they have been much discussed, and his data sets have been used in further studies by many other reseachers. Heiner Rindermann has shown that Lynn's global IQ data are highly correlated with the results of international student assessments, giving them convergent validity.
Lynn's methods and conclusions have been criticized, and we can include those criticisms in the article. In particular, Jelte Wicherts has written many papers contesting Lynn's findings. For example, he conducted, with some colleagues, an independent review of sub-Saharan African IQ data, and, based on it, argued that Lynn's estimate that the average IQ there is between 60 and 70 is too low (Wicherts's research suggests it's about 80, and he believes the Flynn effect has not yet kicked in in Africa). To not discuss the massive amounts of data that exist on IQ differences between nations and the clear racial patterns in those data would amount to censorship.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The question isn't one of notability or censorship. As mentioned above, I don't see any reason to not include discussions of Lynn and his research in[REDACTED] in the appropriate places. The question is how it relates to this article. The problem with respect to this article is that the section is one of WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY. Using Lynn's books as direct sources for his conclusions is a good example of how primary sources can be misused. The heavy reliance on primary sources (including the one you mention above) is one of the biggest problems with this article aprock (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
So you are asking how Lynn's research demonstrating racial differences in IQ around the world is related to this article titled Race and intelligence. I think it's obviously related to this article. I don't see how giving space to the much discussed views of one of the best known researchers in the field of race and IQ suggests WP:UNDUE, as long as we also give space to his critics. There's no need to use Lynn's books as sources, as his findings have been summarized by others, e.g. Rindermann in the article I linked to above.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not asking what the relation is. I'm pointing out that using his personal view as the basis for a section is an example of WP:UNDUE and a misuse of WP:PRIMARY. Just because he is well known doesn't mean that his conclusions represent current understanding. That's why we need to use secondary sources. The Rindermann source you provide does not discuss Lynn's conclusions with respect to race and intelligence. aprock (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
precisely. lynn has been given undue weight by allocating a whole section to his views. there are already articles ("iq and global inequality" and others) devoted to his views. this section should be moved to the "iq and global inequality"-page.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPOV does not mean that we must present only the "current understanding" (which is difficult to establishment anyway because there are so many disagreements in this area). Rather, the article must include all significant viewpoints, including Lynn's much discussed studies. This paper by Jensen & Rushton summarizes Lynn's research as follows:
"The data base became truly international when Richard Lynn collated national IQ scores from 192 countries . Going beyond the traditional three macro-races of Africans, Europeans, and East Asians, Lynn organized the data according to the ten “genetic clusters” (population groups) identified by Cavalli-Sforza et al. in their 1994 History and Geography of Human Genes. Lynn tabulated 620 studies from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present (N = 813,778) and found the world average IQ to be 90 (Fig. 1). The East Asian cluster (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) obtained the highest mean IQ at 105, followed by Europeans (100), Inuit-Eskimos (91), South East Asians (87), Native American Indians (87), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians & North Africans (84), sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), and Kalahari Bushmen & Congo Pygmies (IQ 54)."
I certainly agree. The problem is that all significant view points are not presented with equal weight, and the very problem you mention that the current understanding is difficult to establishment anyway because there are so many disagreements is belied by the presentation of Lynn's work as if it were the current understanding. It's not clear that a review summary of data qualifies as secondary sourcing, but certainly other aspects of their review do. I think it's pretty clear that using the review paper by Rushton and Jenson does not address the problem of undue weight, but rather potential exacerbates the problem. Replacing the direct sourcing Lynn to the secondary sourcing found in Rushton/Jenson would be an improvement, with the caveat that both of those researchers are not truly secondary sources independent of the controversy. aprock (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the Hunt article is similar to some of Lynn's work in that it's about nations, not races. Whicherts is fine for criticism of Lynn, but it's not really a secondary source as it's parallel to Lynn's work, not at a higher level. Likewise, similar to Rushton and Jenson, Wicherts is not an independent observer in this debate, but rather a contributing researcher. aprock (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You might be right about the Hunt article, not sure. I'd consider the Wicherts article a decent secondary source though, because the data he's using has all been published before in other sources. A source can still be secondary even if one one of the researchers is involved in the debate. It's an ok article and balances out some of the weight on Lynn, which I think makes more sense than deleting the section altogether. Any other article like this would do the job just as well. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that citing Wicherts or R/J as secondary sources are a significant problem. My point was that it would serve the section better to find sources further from the debate than they. Using primary sources, or secondary sources which are directly involved in research, isn't a problem per se, it's just that they suffer from the potential of being misused. aprock (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Victor, when you write, "Lynn's conclusions have been published in peer-reviewed journals," what you are really saying is that they have been published as primary sources that are to be the basis of Misplaced Pages article text only if those conclusions are agreed with by reliable secondary sources. What such secondary sources are there? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Above, I quoted a passage from a paper by Jensen and Rushton which succintly summarizes Lynn's research on this topic. Aprock and Slrubenstein claim that it is not a secondary source, because J & R are not "independent of the controversy". This is silly, because you could say that about anyone who has published papers on the race & IQ question. The purpose of the use of secondary sources is to establish that the primary source in question has been discussed by other researchers and to prevent users from making interpretative or synthetic claims about primary sources. J & R's article reviews the research on race and IQ by Lynn and many others, and is quite clearly a secondary source with regard to Lynn's works. I don't think anyone can claim that J & R misrepresent Lynn's arguments or results, so I don't understand what you are arguing.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect your "silly" comment is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As I noted above, using J/R's review article is definitely preferred to quoting Lynn's results directly. It still remains that J/R are directly involved in the debate, and generally are in concordance with Lynn. Using them as a secondary source does not help the POV issue at all. aprock (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand what the neutral point of view means. We must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Thus, Lynn's views must be presented in this article, just like those of his critics. What you are trying to do is to excise entirely the sizable literature on worldwide variation in IQ from this article. It does not matter if Rushton and Jensen have similar views as Lynn. There is no Misplaced Pages policy stipulating that only those secondary sources that disagree with the conclusions of the primary source can be used. No one thinks Jensen and Rushton misrepresent Lynn's research, so what's the problem? If Lynn's research was described with the exact same words that Jensen and Rushton use by some anti-hereditarian scholar, it would make no difference. The fact that Jensen and Rushton agree with Lynn is completely irrelevant. Their article is an excellent source because they concisely summarize Lynn's work published over many years.
You seem to be worried that by discussing Lynn's research in the article we would give it undue weight. But this would happen only if we did not include the views of his many critics. This is what WP:NPOV is all about. The fact is that there are differences in average IQ scores between regions of the world (even people like Wicherts agree with that), and no one thinks that the average IQ is the same across the globe. This is due to some environmental or hereditary causes, probably both, and also due to methodological problems. Many critics have countered Lynn by saying that low IQ is caused by underdevelopment, and not the other way round, and not even Lynn thinks that genes explain all the differences between races. All this could be discussed in the article, so that Lynn's views would not receive undue weight.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be quite mistaken about what I do and don't understand. Suffice it to say, I do not think that discussing Lynn's research gives it undue weight. As noted above, this article is about race and intelligence, not regions and intelligence. As noted above, using the R/J review does nothing towards addressing NPOV, particularly from the perspective of representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views. You are free to disagree with me. aprock (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I never said it should not be discussed, and I've said several times that the section could be improved. As it currently stands, the section is a mess and shouldn't be in the article in it's present form as it presents something which is very muddied as settled science. aprock (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think aprock's 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC) statement says it all. Jensen and Rushton are not independent of the controversy which makes them not the most reliable source on the matter, and the book is so largely speculative and not addressing the issues of this article I fail to see why we spend time on it. Slrubenstein | Talk21:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the view that Lynn and Vanhanen is being overrepresented and that we should include a lot of information about how academia has reacted to their view before writing up a section about it. Support from others in their own camp does not suggest general acceptance by a long shot. We should look at Flynn, Nisbett and reviews of the book in order to be able to write up a neutral section. ·Maunus·ƛ·22:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, at the very least, checking for reviews of the book is a crucial first step to deciding what the major secondary sources say the underlying issue, which helps show what is undue weight and what is not in addressing the issue in this article. Does someone have a convenient link to a list of reviews of the book? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
...and what's it about?
Once again I think we're jumping down the sources first, content second, rabbit (or is it rat?) hole. As with everything else, what is it that we're trying to say about IQ differences outside the U.S.? How many studies are there that we can cite? Shouldn't we cite all studies of significant scope? (Along with observations by scholars/other researchers?) You address undue weight concerns by being inclusive of more material and positioning it along the spectrum of reliability/ believability/ consensus et al. (including timeline, usually newer is more reliable but not always)—not by paring down. I see a lot of jostling about with grunting and the occasional head butt above, but not a whole lot in terms of stepping back and discussing what the section should actually say. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
All good questions. Part of the problem is that IQ research is generally US centric, so while there are a smattering of IQ studies outside the US, there are very few peer reviewed race related IQ studies. The generally murkiness of our understanding about this question is generally not at all described in the section. In fact, given the general murkiness, I'm not sure such a section is very useful. aprock (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
There is tons of peer-reviewed IQ research from all over the world. Check out the bibliographies in Lynn's books. The significance of Lynn's work is that he has compiled and synthesized data from disparate sources, many of them peer-reviewed articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at the bibliography. With respect to race based intelligence studies done for the purposes of measuring the difference in intelligence, there is very little there. aprock (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
@Slrubenstein's above: It's very clear who is aligned with supporting whose study, IMHO that's all part of the narrative. It's up to us as editors to represent the quality of these studies (including support along party lines, for the lack of a better term). It's our role to represent the studies and areas of debate and dispute in the article, not to debate and dispute here and just the winner makes it into the article. There is a difference between the most informative article and the article that's whittled down to what are currently considered the "correct" bits. We need to focus on the former, not the latter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK20:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies I have to catch up on other things, here is a summary approximation of the studies Lynn references, from this review of Richard Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. I can't speak for Malloy (the reviewer) or the review's content. A short web hunt did turn up Malloy doing various bits of math on IQs to explain certain observations, discrepancies in the tested IQs of groups of Hawaiians for example.
@Victor and Aprock: Since you (i.e., "we") appear to not have much of a consensus, perhaps the best place to start for this section is to present some sort of inventory and summary of studies outside the U.S., chronologically if possible. We can then worry about next steps. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK02:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the conflict is a manufactured one. Victor and I generally agree. Or rather, I agree with much of what Victor has said, and he's disagreed with a lot of stuff I haven't said. Specifically, I think nearly everyone here has said that redoing the section in an NPOV manner is a reasonable tack to take. With respect to the presentation of Lynn's review, it's a fine summary of his work. aprock (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Aprock, you started this current debate by arguing that Lynn's research on IQ differences around the world should not be discussed in this article. You said so quite explicitly here. If this conflict is manufactured, you were the manufacturer. But perhaps we can now move on to discussing what the section about IQ differences outside of the US should look like, instead of trying to remove the section.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec with Victor's below) I thought I saw a little olive branch sprig, movement, whatever you'd like to call it. IMHO (especially) here and elsewhere it does not do well to dwell on what someone said earlier, that stymies progress by moving us back to where we were before after we've ostensibly taken a step forward. (The corollary is to never ask if someone has "changed" their mind!) It's pretty clear to me at least that there will be no great epiphanic leaps forward, we must bear our burden of being editorial inchworms. :-)
It would seem to me that:
we need some sort of chronological/locality/subjects inventory of major studies as I've mentioned
we need secondary sources on those studies, other researchers commenting included (outside the Lynn issue)
hopefully we have others who have trodden the same path, but specifically with regard to Lynn, his is a notable source and needs to be treated accordingly whether we editorially agree or not; some thoughts/questions on that, the answer to be based on secondary sources and comments of other researchers—arguing whether they are primary or secondary is, IMHO, a huge waste of energy, that is why I'm indicating them as a different category of source:
to what degree does Lynn cover the landscape as represented by #1?
to what degree is Lynn's a fair and accurate representation of #1? irrespective of Lynn's subsequent conclusions to the degree possible, of course, some of those are by definition the output of Lynn's aggregation process
What the next step or question is I can't say, it depends on the above. We don't need to know how the story finishes yet, debating that point is premature because we simply don't have a critical mass of good content. Does this seem like a reasonable approach? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK14:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Very quick read of the below, my initial reaction is that before we start out by stating something is questionable, we need to spend a bit more time on what that is: quantify before qualify, otherwise there's no context. I think the section will wind up being longer... Also, discussions about reliability need to be in the middle; whatever is written needs to come to some fair representation summing up the current state of research and scholarship independent of any individual source. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK14:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Draft
Here's a draft of how the section could read:
International comparisons
The validity and reliability IQ scores obtained from outside of the United States and Europe have been questioned, in part because of the inherent difficulty of comparing IQ scores between cultures. Several researchers have argued that cultural differences limit the appropriateness of standard IQ tests in non-industrialized communities. In the mid-1970s, for example, the Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria concluded that it was impossible to devise an IQ test to assess peasant communities in Russia because taxonomy was alien to their way of reasoning.
Nevertheless, some reseachers have attempted to measure IQ variation in a global context. According to Richard Lynn, racial differences in IQ scores are observed around the world. He collated IQ data from more than a hundred countries and, using various estimation techniques, reported mean IQ scores for 192 nations. Adopting the ten-category classification scheme of human genetic variation introduced in The History and Geography of Human Genes by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues, Lynn argues that mean IQ varies by genetic cluster, or "race". According to his calculations, the East Asian cluster (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) has the highest mean IQ at 105, followed by Europeans (100), Inuit-Eskimos (91), South East Asians (87), Native American Indians (87), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians & North Africans (84), sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), and Kalahari Bushmen & Congo Pygmies (IQ 54). Lynn argues that IQ differences between these genetic clusters are substantially hereditary, caused by different evolutionary pressures, and that they explain much of the variation in economic and social development between nations. Lynn has defended the use of IQ data from underdeveloped countries by citing evidence that IQ tests are have predictive power also in regions like sub-Saharan African, and that his IQ data are highly correlated with the results of international student asssessment studies. Templer and Arikawa have concluded that Lynn's IQ data are highly correlated with variation in skin color and winter and summer temperatures globally, providing, in their estimation, evidence for Lynn's evolutionary hypothesis of intelligence differences.
Lynn's methods and conclusions have been contested. For example, Wicherts and colleagues reviewed IQ data from sub-Saharan Africa, arguing that the mean score there was about 80. Furthermore, they suggest that the Flynn effect is yet to take hold in Africa. Borsboom has criticized Lynn for failing to test his data for measurement bias. Richardson has argued that Lynn has the causal connection backwards, suggesting that "the average IQ of a population is simply an index of the size of its middle class, both of which are results of industrial development". Mackintosh has criticized Lynn for manipulation of data, and raised doubts about the reliability of his findings.
Note that this a quick and dirty draft, and I have not, for example, checked if all the sources are used properly there. What I want to know if others agree that this is how the section should roughly be like.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a significant improvement over what's in the article, and I would support replacing what is there with this, as well as suggest some changes. The first paragraph could probably do to be expanded, since it is one of the main reasons why extensive research into cross-cultural IQ has not been done. The second paragraph mentions "some researchers", but only quotes data from Lynn. Wicherts has also done extensive survey work parallel to Lynn, and come up with significantly different conclusions. Including results from he and other active researchers is vital to address the POV issues of the section. While the prose is improved, it still has too much of a Lynn vs. Critics feel. I also think there should be a preference to using the peer reviewed work of the various researchers to the unreviewed work. Finally, including the graphic and the raw data from Lynn's unreviewed book puts undue weight on that review. aprock (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Two quick points. First, is there any other IQ map other than Lynn's? Second, Lynn's map would rather have to stay while the section is Lynn-heavy; if we wish for the map to go away—and this can be handled by including a Wiki-link to the article—then we need to address the fixation on Lynn. There's also the problem if Lynn's is the only such map, as we're then eliminating the only such source; I'm glad to leave that for future resolution based on what we come up with.
If Lynn says "X", then "balance" for the section as a whole is not lining up an equal number of admirers and critics ending with critics as the last word and chucking his graph—as to do otherwise would provoke charges of favoritism. "Balance" is including additional sources so that the proportion of content devoted to Lynn is more appropriate—which we hopefully can all agree on as a reasonable editorial goal for this section. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is an enormous amount of undue weight on a problematic and severely criticized study. Lynn and Vanhanen are not authoritative enough on this issue to merit a full illustrated section dedicated uncritically to their data and conclusions (albeit with a small disclaimer on the top). Much work to be done on that prior to inclusion.·Maunus·ƛ·21:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
No evaluations of any position in R&I are all positive or all negative. As I said, but perhaps not as succinctly, the solution is to add a good deal more content which does not depend on Lynn. It shouldn't be about who supports and who criticizes Lynn. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK23:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be he said she said, but finding out about the reception would enable us to write a neutral section about the topic of international Iq differences - that can't be done without reading other studies of international IQ and reading the opinions of those who criticize Lynns study. I believe that Lynn's study is not sufficiently influential or hold sufficient general credence as to be alotted this amount of attention - I think I can back this view point up with sources if I get time but Flynn and Nisbett comes to mind immediately.·Maunus·ƛ·23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that the draft Victor describes as "quick and dirty" is an improvement over the current condition of the article. But I'm still dubious about the graphic being in the article at all. I have the Borsboom source at hand, and it makes an important point that confirms something I mentioned (but didn't cite to the other source I had seen, which was a blog) about a foundational point in all these studies of group IQ differences that seems to be neglected by almost all authors, but which can be established by multiple reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, Lynn was the first to collect and synthesize IQ data from all around the world, and his data are still the only ones to cover all continents. After Lynn, Wicherts et al. and Malloy have independently reviewed sub-Saharan African IQ studies (why is it that these R&I debates are always almost solely about black people?), but I'm not aware of any other systematic reviews of worldwide IQ variation than Lynn's, although Rindermann and others have established that Lynn's data are highly correlated with results obtained in international student assessment studies. Other participants in the debate have either conducted their own analyses using Lynn's data (e.g. Jones et al. and Eppig et al.), or commented on Lynn's methods, assumptions, or putative errors, often suggesting alternative explanations for the patterns in Lynn's data.
So, Lynn is the primus motor of this debate, and it's quite natural that he has a central role in the section. However, the section should not be just about him and his critics, and it could be useful to cite other sources using different theoretical assumptions -- perhaps the work of some non-psychometricians (even if their opinions about intelligence testing were just hand-waving, as they often are). In general, the first and third paragraphs of the draft above could be extended. I started the draft section with a general discussion about problems in international IQ comparisons so as to not give Lynn's research undue weight. However, Vecrumba has a point when he says that "before we start out by stating something is questionable, we need to spend a bit more time on what that is: quantify before qualify, otherwise there's no context." Finally, I have no strong opinion about the inclusion of Lynn's world map.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Victor, taking up your point of agreement with Peters, I suggest taking a look at the latest practitioner's manual on the WAIS-IV, in which the WAIS-IV developers discuss several limitations in cross-cultural comparisons of IQ, a subject on which they have done much research. You can hardly find a more mainstream source than the developers of the WAIS-IV, and their comments would add a lot of balance and perspective to any article section on cross-national, cross-cultural, cross-racial, or cross-whatever studies on IQ. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
WBB, I have that book on pdf. Which chapters in it do you think would be useful here? BTW, in the WAIS-IV standardization sample, full-scale scores were 103.21 (SD 13.77) for whites, 88.67 (SD 13.68) for African-Americans, 91.63 (SD 14.29) for Hispanics, and 106.07 (SD 15.01) for Asians (p. 118 in the manual), which contradicts Flynn and Dickens' claims of B-W score convergence. If Lynn's research should not be discussed in this article, as some suggest, then that is doubly true for Flynn and Dickens' claims.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are some quotes from two book reviews of Richard Lynn's books that were published in the journal Intelligence, they were written by John Loehlin and Wendy Johnson (they are both highly respected scholars in the field of human intelligence and are not generally seen to be linked with the Jensen/Rushton/Lynn camp). I could email the pdfs of the complete reviews if needed. The quotes presented here are from the opening and closing paragraphs of their two reviews:
"Richard Lynn, with various colleagues, has published more than 30 empirical papers reporting IQ measurements in many populations worldwide. In addition, he has written on important theoretical issues, including the evolution of intelligence, IQ changes over time (“Flynn effects”), sex differences, the role of nutrition, and so on.
(.....)
Is this book the final word on race differences in intelligence? Of course not. But Richard Lynn is a major player, and it is good to have his extensive work on this topic together in one place. Future workers who address these matters under this or any other label will find that Lynn has done a lot of spadework for them. And they will also find that there is plenty to ponder over within these pages."
From book review of: Richard Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis
John C. Loehlin
Psychology Department, University of Texas at Austin,
1 University Station A8000, Austin, TX 78712, USA
(published in the journal INTELLIGENCE in 2006)
"This book is well organized and easily accessible to the generally educated reader. Like most of Richard Lynn's work,it reflects a relatively thorough and careful compilation of the relevant extant literature. The book begins where Herrnstein and Murray (1994) left off in The Bell Curve, with the observation that there is a socioeconomic hierarchy of race in the United States that can be attributed to intelligence test scores. It examines the degree to which this observation can be extended to other multiracial societies throughout the world that also show racial inequalities in earnings and socioeconomic status.
(.....)
To emphasize, despite many possible statistical and psychometric quibbles, the data Lynn presents in this book are essentially correct. At the same time, despite Lynn's protestations to the contrary, these data do little or nothing to address the questions of why this is the case or whether the situation is inevitable or permanent. Like the other theorists he criticizes, Lynn confuses correlation with causation. Read this book if you want to shore up your own pre-existing ideas about the appropriateness of socioeconomic hierarchies correlated with race. Read this book if you want a glimpse into the intellectual process of rationalizing pre-existing ideas through data collection. Don't waste your time with this book if you want to learn something about either intelligence or the evolution of social structures."
From book review of: Richard Lynn's The global bell curve: Race, IQ, and inequality worldwide
Wendy Johnson
MRC Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology,
University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK
(published in the journal INTELLIGENCE in 2008)
Rafrye (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that! I'd be very interested in the full reviews. My sense from your two excerpts is that the former leaves off as Lynn being a reliable representation of existing data which give us something to think about; the latter appears to agree but then also leaps forward to alleging confusion of causation and correlation, Lynn's work being open to being interpreted for intellectually nefarious purposes, etc., etc.
I think we need to separate out data and its representation from representations and their interpretations—particularly interpretations by third parties. We need to be careful about and differentiate:
general acceptance of someone's work as valid; the subsequent "controversy" is among those that read and interpret the work for their various personal agenda, support of their scholarly or socio-political conclusions, etc.;
"controversy" over whether someone's work is even valid in the first place; the subsequent arguing is merely symptomatic of the root controversy
I realize this may seem like splitting hairs to some, but I believe if we keep these distinctions in mind it may be easier to create balanced content. Simply stating something is "controversial" is insufficient. Does this make sense? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the section should give Lynn's estimated average IQ's for each group just broadly sketch the hierarchy. In my opinion it is giving undue weight and inciting credence in numbers the validity of which is contested by experts. The map has the same effect.·Maunus·ƛ·20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Lynn's estimates for each group are reported in reliable secondary sources, and they should stay. If you fear that undue weight is being given to Lynn, go ahead and add more material from his critics, instead of removing anything.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I've removed the image as undue. The main information is already in the body of the article, with some of the appropriate context and caveats. aprock (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hang on now, I don't think it's really consistent for you to remove this image without consensus, especially while you and Maunus are requiring consensus for Victor's edits before they can stay in the article. For instance, it seems that everyone agreed that Victor's draft was an improvement over the original, so why are we continuing to keep the version that we agree isn't as good?
There seems to be an underlying problem here: that it's okay for anyone to remove anything they want from the article, and then require "consensus" for adding it back. Consensus should go both ways. This editing philosophy essentially means that anyone can blank anything they want and never have to add it back if they can't get consensus for it. I know this isn't an actual policy, but I think that the status quo should reign until an alternate consensus is reached. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of resurrecting a previous refrain, please stick to content issues. If you have something to say about the images, then say so. If you think two images plus text data from a single non-peer reviewed source does not constitute undue weight, then please explain why. aprock (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realized that most of Victor's other draft-changes are still in the article, minus the graphs. I do think this data is best represented visually also, though, and others have agreed, which is why I don't think it's the best course of action for you to have removed them. Lynn's book might not be peer-reviewed, but the same data is supported in plenty of other sources that are. Why don't we find one of these sources and apply it to the images, rather than can them altogether? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I think suggestions of specific sources would be a great place to start. Figures can be a tough thing, as constructing new ones from raw data tends to open the door to OR/synth and abuse of primary sources. Modelling a figure based on one in a source seems like a much more safe path to take. aprock (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
victor, why did you leave out wicherts' quote? it should be reinserted. in order to get more balance i also suggest we use the mackintosh-quote about the bushmen iq from the footnotes.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the quote, because there are already far too many quotes in this article. I think the essential content of the Wicherts quote is included in the current version, but if you think there should be more, use a paraphrase, not a quote. The Bushmen IQ thing is a meaningless detail.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
All the graphics in the article need a lot of fact-checking, and perhaps deletion is best for some.
I just did a quick look at all the image files currently posted in the article. There is at least one that appears to have an unverifiable source, and at least one more that has a source that is surely veriable, but arguably not reliable by Misplaced Pages policies. It would be a good idea to discuss the factual basis for each of the data charts shown in the article, and undue weight issues or other issues of emphasis that may arise from their inclusion in the article. I'm still mostly on wikibreak, but I thought I should bring this up for everyone to discuss here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protection requested
The anon IP edit warring, the disparaging commentaries across a number of articles are getting in the way of building some good will and making progress. I requested semi-protection. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK21:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep checking for current sources--link to source list here.
Here's a friendly reminder to everyone that the Arbitration Committee case about this article and related articles included a reminder to editors to cite statements to reliable sources. For a few months now, I have been compiling a source list related to this article and related topics, and you are invited to suggest additional sources or to comment on the sources already included as you wish. This article can improve greatly as we all commit ourselves to follow the reliable sources where they lead. Recent, professionally edited, mainstream secondary sources can add a lot perspective to this article and show the way to shortening the length of the article and putting point of view into better balance. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
A small aside
I've mentioned here and there the source of my interest in the topic of intelligence testing, having been a subject for years myself (long term study of preemies at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York).
In all of this it is important we remember that "IQ" is the quantification of the result of a test. No test is "objective," every test is "subjective" in that it is looking for something. I thought I'd share an experience I still recall of a test of concepts: being shown quite an extensive set of cards with illustrations; for each being asked to choose which word of several choices spoken to me best matched the illustration. I still recall being quite upset that I missed "razed" (for a picture of a house bull-dozed down), a word I did not know at the time, hearing it as "raised", which of course made no sense with respect to the picture. From the perspective of the tester, I was unable to associate the concept with the picture; from the perspective of the subject, if you had spelled it for me I would have figured it out by process of elimination of it not being the other words.
There are two things at work here: "race and 'IQ'" (results of tests are only as "good" as their creators) and "race and 'intelligence'". It might help in our coverage of the topic to make the necessary distinction, as despite the mapping of the human genome, the last time I checked we still don't know where intelligence lies. Let alone, what is "intelligence" in the first place, it's merely correlation to a (what some would argue is an arbitrary, culturally skewed, etc.) set of particular "cognitive" skills. Ultimately, to the second of the two Lynn reviews above, it's still all about correlation. At least that's how it appears to me at the moment.
> It's not clear that a review summary of data qualifies as secondary sourcing
> I think it's pretty clear that using the review paper by Rushton and Jenson does not address the problem of undue weight, but rather potential exacerbates the problem.
> Jensen and Rushton are not independent of the controversy which makes them not the most reliable source on the matter.
ANYONE who has done research in the field is involved in the "controversy". And as a matter of fact, Rushton's survey review IS the most reliable source on the matter, according to Misplaced Pages policy. Specifically, an academic literature survey of research is the most reliable source possible, and is to be considered as reliable as a standard textbook on a subject. According to that guideline, Rushton's Smoking gun paper is even more reliable here than individual peer-reviewed academic research results (virtually all of which support Rushton).
As icing on the truth-cake, Rushton is not responsible for the vast majority of the data he uses (though it's legitimate if he were). What he usually does is:
1) show us the results from hundreds of unquestionably unbiased studies by prestigious universities, and
2) run SPSS on publicly-available databases from reputable sources--statistics which you can verify yourself on your own PC. I'm sure many have already re-run those statistics in a (futile) effort to overturn the reality which you people are hell--bent on hiding.
For example, his assertion that blacks have, on average, both greater body weight and smaller head circumference is merely a restatement of data NASA collected when looking for astronauts. (A conclusion supported by many, many other objective databases).
And I imagine that's how he managed to publish the result that black men, in general, have larger dicks that whites: someone did a large data collection with many different measurements, and those measurements happened to include race and penis length.
You don't have to LIKE it for it to be true and proven. I don't like it either. Not only did I used to volunteer at Head Start, but I can assure you that I dearly wish it were white men who had the largest dicks--particularly in circumference.
But hey, you know what? The plumage don't enter into it: what I wish and what you wish don't matter in Misplaced Pages.
Remember that.
Write it down.
It is the contumelious mathsci who is be disregarded: it doesn't MATTER that the Pioneer Fund funded his purchase of SPSS and a PC. Nor does it matter what he thinks of blacks personally. Though as an aside, here's what he does think:
"Oh, no!" exclaimed Rushton when asked if he himself believed in racial superiority. "From an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value--if it even means that. And we've got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments."
All that matters is that his meta-analysis has been published in the most credible places possible AND widely cited.
As Dr. Pesta (an intelligence researcher who seems to have left this discussion in disgust) told us, Rushton IS the mainstream view and whatever disagrees with his conclusions is the fringe.
And even if you people somehow succeed in removing Rushton's summary of research which leads to the awful truth--and it IS awful--the individual research results will still support any factual statements for which Rushton's survey was the < ref >. And promise I will look up each of those studies and gleefully restore the bowdlerized statements with the published research as the citation.
You assassinated occam and others who objected to the shameful, biased spin and censorship that you're trying infect this article with. But if you want to succeed in that disgraceful crusade, you'll have to kill me too, as I will not allow lies to be put into my beloved Misplaced Pages.
Most studies use self-identification to define races. In the United States, racial self-idenfication correlates almost perfectly with ancient continental or racial ancestry. This three-dimensional principal components map (for panel A, PC1 = 20% of the variance, PC2 = 5%, and PC3 = 3.5%; for panel B, PC1 = 11%, PC2 = 6%, and PC3 = 5%) from Tishkoff et al. 2009 illustrates the same in a global context and within Africa, although they used a rather small number of genetic markers, so the different populations/races are less distinct than would be if they had used more markers. This chart, adapted from Price et al. 2008, nicely shows how distinct genetically the three great races (black, white, "yellow") of traditional anthropology are, and also how Africans Americans are an admixed population, predominantly West African but with a substantial amount of European ancestry, too.
The old argument that hereditary behavioral and other differences between races are not possible because there are no systematic genetic differences between races is, in the light of modern population genetics, dead and buried. --Victor Chmara (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This is very very wrong and unhelpful. Rushton is by no means the mainstream view and Dr. Pesta has made not such claim - neither has anyone who actually knows about the topic area in which Rushton is working when he makes claims about intelligence and races and human prehistory, which is evolutionary anthropology and not intelligence testing. Victor Chmara's bold statement about how diverse the human races are is a lie that can easily be disproved by simply referring to the most recent and basic text books in genetics that maintain that there is no such thing as geneticfally well-defined continental races and who would lend little or no credence to the pretty map. Cavalli-Sforza does not say that races exist, even though a layman looking at his maps might get that idea. This is complete and utter crap and lies and must stop. Not even David Kan and Captain Occam were so deluded in their rhetorics or so violent in their insistance of their views being closer to the mainstream than the actual mainstream one.·Maunus·ƛ·20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Also Ms. Faye would do wisely in observing the editing restrictions on this article and work to establish consensus rather than simply get on a soapbox and scream about how she is going to correct articles if she wishes to continue editing here.·Maunus·ƛ·20:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"Those who subscribe to the opinion that there are no human races are obviously ignorant of modern biology."--Ernst Mayr, 2002
While the "there are no races" position is popular enough among scientists, it is by no means something that everybody agrees with. Many eminent geneticists, biologists, and anthropologists think that there are races in Homo sapiens. Neil Risch, who has been described as "the statistical geneticist of our time", has defended the use of race as an operational category in biomedical research, just like many of his colleagues. A quote from the NY Times:
"Dr. Risch and nine co-authors say that ignoring race will 'retard progress in biomedical research.' Racial differences have arisen, they say, because after the ancestral human population in Africa spread throughout the world 40,000 years ago, geographical barriers prevented interbreeding. On each continent, under the influence of natural selection and the random change between generations known as genetic drift, people would have diverged away from the common ancestral population, creating the major races. Within each race, religious, cultural and geographical barriers fostered other endogamous, or inbreeding, populations that led to the ethnic groups."
Even if one thinks that there are no biological races, it does not mean social races cannot be genetically distinguished from each other. HiLo48 seems to suggest that it's impossible to define races, but in practise it has been rather unproblematic in race & IQ studies, because people will tell you what race they belong to if you ask them, and these self-categorizations seem to be highly correlated with specific genetic clusters in most cases.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I really can't be bothered to dig up the sources again, I've done it so many times now... Rushton is as discredited within his professional environment as a practicing scholar can be - I have not seen any one being stripped of scholarly credentials as he has been. In his case the pioneer fund, tenure rules and a couple of staunch supporters is all he has to keep him going. On the race note: Plenty of biologists and geneticists publishing in refereed journals and running billion dollar research projects are ignorant of modern biology according to Mayr in this sense then. In that case then being ignorant might be a good thing. Being useful as a correlate in biomedical research doesn't translate to "existing" just like "cranial capacity being a correlate of IQ" doesn't translate into brainsize determining IQ. We really really really need to heave this debate up on a different level. ·Maunus·ƛ·21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
If Rushton really has been thoroughly discredited among his peers, it's very strange that his articles keep getting published in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals. What is common to most of Rushton's academic critics is that their vitas pale into insignificance next to Rushton's. Race is a useful concept in biomedical research simply because races differ in allele frequencies.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Where? Across the whole world? Every country? Every socio-economic niche? Or just the US? I entered this particular discussion in response to the use of the word black as a race. That is surely just a US phenomenon. This very discussion shows the lack of certainty about what race is. The definition if intelligence is also problematic. We have the issue of whether this article is about the whole world, or just the US. Basically, while some individuals think they are certain, we really have massive uncertainty in basic definitional stuff for this article, but many seemingly certain statements inside it. I still question its right to exist in anything like the current form. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48, this may come as a shock to you, but the ancestors of the people in the US actually migrated there from the Old World, so race is biologically real to the same extent in the rest of the world as it is in the US. It does not matter if you don't like this article, because this is a topic that has been and continues to be widely discussed in scholarly literature, and is thus a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. If you have good sources questioning the operationalizations of intelligence and race used in this literature, please cite them so we may perhaps discuss them in the article. Your personal opinions do not count.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Victor this might come as a shock to you but non-american cultures don't necessarily divide people into racial groups based on the same phenotypical traits as Americans, this means that it doesn't matter where the hell Americans migrated from but race is still socially constructed even if you can sometimes make it fit more or less with different biological variables. A man who is black in an american IQ survey could very well be white in a Brazilean survey and vice versa. Just like a man who self identifies as white and looks white - might well have a significant number of african ancestors. Now lets stop this stupid discussion, ignore Faye untill she goes away and get on with improving the article.·Maunus·ƛ·22:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that in a heavily mixed country like Brazil racial categories are less correlated with actual ancestry than in the one-drop rule US. In contrast, European and African racial categories may be more highly correlated with actual ancestry than those used in the US, because Europeans and Africans generally distinguish between blacks and mulattoes. But, yes, let's stop this blathering.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
@HiLo48 and Maunus,
In the medical and human genetics research field we study racial and ethnic differences in genetic traits ALL THE TIME but perhaps you two are not aware of it because we use some special code words to keep the Boasian PC-police types from bothering us. You see, rather than saying "racial groups" instead we say "continental or large subcontinental human population groups" and instead of saying "ethnic groups" we say "human population sub-groups". We are always careful to remember to say "population" instead of "race" because then the PC-police give us a free pass to do our research on racial group genetic differences--oops I mean human population group differences.
This site shows the ethnoracial group gene allele differences that are mapped throughout the human genome in regards to eleven ethnoracial groups, and more will be added soon. Now we have gene differences cataloged for the following eleven ethnoracial groups:
Population descriptors:ASW: African ancestry in Southwest USA, CEU: Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection, CHB: Han Chinese in Beijing, China, CHD: Chinese in Metropolitan Denver, Colorado, GIH: Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas, JPT: Japanese in Tokyo, Japan, LWK: Luhya in Webuye, Kenya, MEX: Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California, MKK: Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya, TSI: Toscans in Italy, YRI: Yoruban in Ibadan, Nigeria.
Translation of "HapMap talk" into "race talk" :
Black = ASW, LWK, MKK, YRI
Hispanic = MEX
White = CEU, TSI
Asian Indian = GIH
East Asian = CHB, CHD, JPT
In the past few years there has been a whole bunch of exciting new research on discovering genes that have undergone evolutionary selection during the history of modern humans as the racial groups developed (...now don't you kinda of suspect that this includes the genes that modulate intelligence???...) and what they are finding is that much of this selection for new gene alleles has occurred in Europeans (AKA Whites) and East Asians but not in Africans (AKA Blacks). Here are links to some of these new research discoveries on genetic differences between human population groups (AKA races):
This last paper cited above ("Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations" by Professor Jonathan Pritchard's group at U of Chicago) is all about how there has been positive selection for genes including a pathway called NRG-ERBB4 that controls brain development and brain synapse function and that has even been linked to cognitive function (e.g. see Wen L et al Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jan 19;107(3):1211-6). One point made in the Pickrell et al. paper is that selection for the new versions of these important brain influencing genes only occurred in Whites and Asians (not in Blacks). Finding this sort of scientific discovery does not bode well for your Boasian theory that all racial groups have the same genetic endowment for intelligence. Here is the abstract for the Pickrell et al. paper:
Genome Res. 2009 May;19(5):826-37. Epub 2009 Mar 23.
Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations.
Department of Human Genetics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
pickrell@uchicago.edu
Abstract:
Genome-wide scans for recent positive selection in humans have yielded insight
into the mechanisms underlying the extensive phenotypic diversity in our species,
but have focused on a limited number of populations. Here, we present an analysis
of recent selection in a global sample of 53 populations, using genotype data
from the Human Genome Diversity-CEPH Panel. We refine the geographic
distributions of known selective sweeps, and find extensive overlap between these
distributions for populations in the same continental region but limited overlap
between populations outside these groupings. We present several examples of
previously unrecognized candidate targets of selection, including signals at a
number of genes in the NRG-ERBB4 developmental pathway in non-African
populations. Analysis of recently identified genes involved in complex diseases
suggests that there has been selection on loci involved in susceptibility to type
II diabetes. Finally, we search for local adaptation between geographically close
populations, and highlight several examples.
Rafrye (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
@Rafrye (who ever you are): I would wear the epithet of "Boasian" as a badge of honour if that was relevant. However, I am not adverse to using the terminology of population - not because it is more PC but because it is more correct. The distinction between races and populations is crucial because it is the only way that genetic studies can make any claims to having validly demonstrated anything. Race, when used by everyone but racists and maybe geneticians in the privacy of their labs, is not genetically defined, and we Boasians have demonstrated this so aptly that it really is a wonder that it hasn't sunk through to educated people like yourself yet. I will gladly and interestedly read the papers you provided and I am not adverse to changing my opinions about the possibility of finding genetically based differences in measured intelligence in different populations, but I want to see the evidence first, and I am not the only one who would need to be convinced - there is an entire scholarly community of people just like me who also doesn't buy it when some old racist comes around saying "I've proven what I knew all along - black people are stupid and have big penises". They need to be convinced too before[REDACTED] will describe Lynn and Rushton's conclusions as uncontradicted fact.·Maunus·ƛ·02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Victor - my opinion does count, just as yours does, when it comes to discussing the quality and style of the article. That's what editors do. When the second paragraph of the article quite accurately states "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia...." and then the rest of the article is written as if precise definitions DO exist, then Houston, we have a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
There are tons of concepts in social science that not universally accepted, but as long as the scholars involved tell us how they operationalize these concepts, it's not a huge problem. Moreover, most people doing reseach on race and intelligence agree that races can be defined using self-identification, and intelligence using IQ tests. When it is said that "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia", it mostly means just that there are a bunch of disgruntled social constructionists who reject the work of psychometricians without even understanding it. Your kvetching about this is useless.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
@HiLo48 (who ever you are): You said "I would wear the epithet of "Boasian" as a badge of honour if that was relevant." I think it is relevant. In my opinion the history section of this Race and Intelligence article is pretty bad in that it omits Francis Galton and Franz Boas. The two key founders of the two sides of this nature/nurture race intelligence debate are Francis Galton (the nature/hereditarian side) and Franz Boas (the nurture/environmentalist side), yet neither are mentioned. We should have a statement about both Galton and Boas and their pictures (if necessary drop the picture of Binet, he is much more peripheral to this Race and Intelligence issue). Galton influenced Ernst Haeckel, an influential race hereditarian in Germany, and Galton at Univ of London founded the influential hereditarian "London school" of psychology. Galton's philosophical descendants (many who trained or did postdoctoral fellowships at Univ of London) included Karl Pearson, Charles Spearman, Cyril Burt, Raymond Cattell, Phillip Vernon, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, and J. Philippe Rushton. Franz Boas was similarly influential in building the opposing environmentalist school. From his post as head of anthropology at Columbia Boas essentially founded the field of Cultural Anthropology and set in motion the whole environmentalist view that all racial groups have the same innate level of mental abilities and that it is only environmental and cultural differences that account for any existing differences. Boas's philosophical descendants (many who trained or did postdoctoral fellowships at Columbia) included Melville Herskovits, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Otto Kleinberg, Ashley Montagu, and Jonathan Marks. Oh and I would wear the epithet of "Galtonian" as a badge of honor if that was relevant, and indeed it is! Rafrye (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It was I who said that, I just forgot to sign. I think including a description of the foundation of the two schools and possibly pictures of Boas and Galton is a good idea. I first thought that you, Rafrye, were a former editor returned in new clothing, but now I see that you are much too well read to be who I thought you were. Welcome to the wikipedia, as long as we keep the focus on improving the article and giving a balanced view of the issues I think we can get along even though you wear the Galtonian badge and I the Boasian.
I agree that the different approaches of the Galtonians and the Boasians should be discussed more at least in History of the race and intelligence controversy if not in this article. Galton was the first to realize that intelligence is normally distributed in any population, and he thought that whites and blacks differ just in the means of the distributions, and that there is much overlap between these two races. His estimate of the size of the difference between whites and blacks was remarkably close to modern estimates.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Include and position
Whether Rushton or anyone else, please feel free to provide constructive suggestions on how to represent viewpoints and where to place them in the wider spectrum of contentions about race and intelligence. Civil discussion does not require agreement, only civility. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Removing SAT images
These images are unsourced (wikipedia is not a source) and do not represent any research or source related to the study of race and intelligence. Unless a source which links them to race and intelligence research can be found, they will be removed. Please refer to for prior discussion and general consensus for removal. aprock (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Victor's remark that they are sourced. If you click on the image, it clearly states the source as "Own work". aprock (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The images are based on raw statistical data and is as such OR - also its relevance to the article is dubious - the data has not been corrected for SES so the low results of blacks and other minorities could be a simple SES bias.·Maunus·ƛ·23:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As I discovered for myself a day or two ago, the SAT plot images on the article point back to a United States government website, which in turn points to the College Board as the SAT score data source. But the federal government presentation in each case is a data table, not a plot, so the plot is (methinks) WP:OR in a way that is dubious. I see that the plot images (not part of the article on the moment) each omit a data category from the underlying table and otherwise engage in adaptation of the source in a manner that appears to constitute original research, so I think the deletion from the article is a correct call both for upholding Misplaced Pages policy and for maintaining focus of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems silly to me that merely converting a small one page table of racial group test scores (published on a government websiste) to a line graph format is claimed to constitute "original research". Journalists at the WSJ, WaPo, NYTimes and other venues convert published tabulated numerical data to graphical format all the time, does this mean that journalists are original researchers? Also it is not valid to demand that the data be "corrected for SES" since hereditatians see SES differences as largely a result of IQ differences and they can back it up with plausible theory and convincing research results (of course conversely, the environmentalists assert that IQ differences are a result of SES differences but they can not actually back up this "nurture assumption" with any convincing research).Rafrye (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The original research is not the compilation of the table. The OR is the selection of the data to compile. The OR is the suggestion the selected data relates in any reliable way to the topic of the article. It's not up to us to say that SAT scores from college bound seniors are in any way representative of the racial gap in intelligence. This is a clear case of misuse of a primary source. As you're "new" here, you might review WP:PST. aprock (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Aprock, the graphs are not "own work", rather their source is . However, it's a valid criticism that they lack context, as the National Center for Education Statistics just reports them and does not analyse them in any way, so perhaps it's better to not include them at this point. I'll check if there are similar tables in, say, some peer-reviewed article (although I fear that someone will then come up with a new set of reasons as to why such data should not be included in the article...).--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
We must mention the new book of richard lynn in this article "the global bell curve", 2008, Lynn.
The book shows that across the world, where several races coexist, the hierarchy of a large number of social parameters is dictated by the IQ. The races with the with the highest IQ (East Asians and Europeans) show the highest salaries, the highest rate academic achievement, the lowest rate of crimes, the lowest unemployment rate or the lowest fertility rates.
The book shows that in North America, Brazil, England, Holland or Australia, the hierarchy remains the same:
The East Asian (Chinese, Japanese. Average IQ of 105) have the largest cranial capacity, higher wages, higher school completion rates, the lowest rate of crimes and the lowest fertility rates. This is also tracking well in America than in Europe, Australia or Latin America.
Europeans come second in this hierarchy, just below regarding the cranial capacity and IQ (100) but also the average wage rate of crime and crime (slightly above the East Asian) or yet fertility rates or unemployment. This is true both in North America and Latin America, Europe or Australia.
This was followed the south-east Asia (average IQ 87)
The north African (average I.Q of 84)
The African (Average I.Q of 67-80)
The Aborigines of Australia (Average I.Q of 62)
Africans and Australian aborigines are characterized by the smallest cranial capacity, the lowest level of intelligence, the highest rate of crimes, the highest rate of unemployment, lower educational attainment rates and lower wages.
"The Global Bell Curve" is the work which follows "Race differences in intelligence, Lynn, 2006. Like the latter, it focuses on the genetic causation of this hierarchy.
Race
I.Q
Brain size (cc)
Est asians
105
1416
Europeans
100
1369
South-east asians
87
1332
Pacific Islanders
85
1317
South africans and noth africans
84
1293
Africans
67
1282
Australian aborigenes
62
1225
Lynn's book was to show that contrary to what many sociologists say, this is not the position of minority causing the problems: Some of the country around the world, the hierarchy is proportional to the intellectual level. In southeast Asia, the Chinese are a minority, but over-represented in all the universities so that the Indonesian government established quottas maximum input for Chinese.
In Europe, the Chinese have an average salary higher than the European majority, this is also true in North America and Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.104.61.1 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Lynn's research is discussed in the section called "International comparisons". What that section should include has been debated on this talk page recently, see above.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
There has been discussion of this issue since the ArbCom case wrapped up. I'm now formally requesting a move of this article (titled Race and intelligence as I type this) to ] The former article title, of course, will live on as a redirect. --
This should not be proposed as an edit request but as a rename discussion. There needs to be consensus to rename the article. I personally am favourably inclined towards the proposal, but requesting an admin to move is not enough, discussion among all the involved editors is necessary. I have taken the liberty of opening a page move discussion. ·Maunus·ƛ·14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Support (ec) The use of "intelligence" in the current title is far too encompassing and opens any discussion of differences in IQ scoring to allegations of racial superiority or inferiority, attracting the wrong thinking to the article and to IQ testing in general. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
@Ferahgo, below: As SATs are U.S. specific, I would suggest a section called "Other tests associated with quantifying intelligence" and still keep the IQ title. I appreciate your point, however, "Race and group differences in results of tests which are designed for or are associated with quantifying intelligence or knowledge" is a bit of a mouthful. One can also argue that SAT scores are more a measure of the education one has received and one's motivations and familial/social pressures to receive it (or not)—not whether or not they are intrinsically "smart." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
@Maunus: Thank you for that, I was actually reading it as you propose, "and race", not "by race." WeijiBaikeBianji, would you mind updating your rename proposal?PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK15:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Last comment for now, "Race and IQ" alone would be an improvement, I think; "Group differences in IQ" not focused on race is then a useful supplement to discussing statistics, etc. without the race card in play. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK16:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
@Victor: "Race and intelligence" only has a bit over a one-thirds more lead over "Race and IQ" in the same Google search, let's not use Google to argue the case here. If we are discussing standardized tests and their results as they correlate to "race", "IQ" would be the more apt term to use; if we are discussing not only measurements of but aspects of intelligence beyond (largely) standardized tests, then "intelligence" would be the more apt term to use. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but we're not arguing over the title here, we're (implicitly) arguing over what the article is about, and there are more constructive ways of doing that. Ferahgo is completely correct in associating scope and title. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I've seen "what other things are named on Misplaced Pages" produce some truly bad results. Any change in name must be done solely on the merits here, not on the basis of parallels. There's no debate on what "sex" or "height" are, but there is on "race." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK19:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Put another way, does the article as envisioned include sections:
Race and IQ
Race and other quantified tests associated with intelligence
Race and other aspects of intelligence
#1 and #2 (= "IQ"), or #1 and #2 and #3 (= "intelligence")? We'll leave the problem with implications of superiority or inferiority aside for the moment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Support The main reason for the proposed rename is parallelism with the section title in the main article Intelligence quotient (which follows the recent professional literature in that regard). Thanks to Maunus for explaining the procedure for this request in the section above. Peters correctly points out that the current title, which is also attested in the literature, tends to trigger cognitive illusions in editors newly approaching the article (from more than one "side" of real-world debate on the subject) and thus makes for a less optimal editing environment. Of course all editors should redouble efforts to make sure the article is neutral in point of view and reflects the most reliable secondary sources on the subject, including discussions of differences in terminology among writers on the subject. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no parallelism with the section in Intelligence quotient, where Group differences refers to both sex and race differences; it's an umbrella term. This article is just about race differences in intelligence, which is why it is called Race and intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This was already discussed here and I pretty much agree with Victor's reasoning for keeping the current title. Three main reasons for this:
1. It's consistent with a lot of similar Misplaced Pages articles, like Fertility and Intelligence (and quite a few others)
2. "Race and Intelligence" is the most common way that authors who write about it refer to the topic, from both sides of the debate
3. The article encompasses other measures of intelligence besides IQ, like reaction time testing and possibly SAT (the SAT charts have been removed until we can provide some context for them, but hopefully that will happen eventually). IQ in the title is too narrow a focus.
comment I think that the proposed name may be unfelicitious as it seems to take the concept of race for granted. What I wish more than anything is exactly for the article to give an understanding of why race is not a concept that can simply be taken for granted. I think a better name would be "Group differences in IQ and race" (where the "and" serves to make it a subject of discussion instead of merely the factor by which IQ is categorized) or "Race and group differences in IQ". However I also recognze that using IQ instead of race may be limiting the scope of the article in an unhelpful way.·Maunus·ƛ·15:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree now with Maunus's comment Also taking into account Aprock's thoughtful comment, I think Maunus has come up with a good improvement over several less satisfactory choices. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
oppose I agree that the current name isn't ideal, but the proposed name is a mess. I mean, we could name the article "IQ and a couple of other intelligence measures discussed generally in the context of self identified race/ethnicity." I think that Race and IQ might be an improvement, but the proposed change is too cumbersome. aprock (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
strong oppose For the reasons stated above by Ferahgo. See also discussion here. Race and intelligence is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent with other titles (until today). It is also an expression widely used by academics, unlike WBB's proposal. WBB's title changes of related articles will have to be reverted, because he did not discuss it with others (which is weird considering his edit history), and there certainly was no consensus for doing it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's stick to the discussion here. Drawing parallels and inferences without discussing the details underneath is how these debates turn into brawls. Yes? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "parallels and inferences" I have drawn, but I find WBB's behavior here very unconstructive. We are having endless discussions about even very minor details in these articles, yet he makes major, difficult to reverse changes to several related articles without even a peep beforehand!--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Support It's a step in the right direction. Despite Victor insisting that the current title is precise, the lead of the article correctly says "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence..." IQ narrows it down to something that can be defined. Just leaves the other half, race, being poorly defined. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose I view the change of "Health and Intelligence" to "Group Differences in IQ by Health" as a terrible change and I speak as someone who is pursuing research on why IQ differences (measured in childhood) correlate with mortality from cardiovascular disease decades later. In this regard, most researchers in the field see IQ as the independent variable and cardiovascular health as the dependent variable, but WBB's change messes up the meaning of the title by implying that causation should go ONLY from health to IQ (but in reality the causation can go either way depending upon the particular association one is studying).Rafrye (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose In regard to the proposed change of "Race and Intelligence" to "Group Differences in IQ by Race", it is an attempt to narrow down the discussion regarding differences in intelligence (general cognitive ability or "g") to the discussion of differences only in performance on specifically designated IQ tests. This is very different from how most intelligence researchers view the concept of "intelligence", instead they view intelligence differences as causing differences in performance on many different types of tests and everyday life and career challenges that require the use of cognition and reasoning ability. Intelligence experts have published papers showing that IQ (g) correlates about 0.7 to 0.8 with scores on math tests, academic achievement tests, and SAT and ACT tests. The modern view is that ALL cognitively demanding tests tap the SAME reservoir of mental ability regardless of whether the test is technically designated as an "IQ test" or an "academic achievement test". This Race and Intelligence article should include mention that the view espoused by Galtonian/hereditarian scholars (such as Eysenck, Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Herrnstein, Murray, Gottfredson, Harpending et al.) sees ethnoracial group differences in intelligence as being the most important and key cause of racial differences in academic achievement, SAT/ACT scores, career success, earned income etc. One of the important aspects of this Jensenist viewpoint is that it provides a very broad and wide-ranging explanation for many issues of race group performance differences aside from just racial differences on narrowly defined IQ tests. There is ample evidence from peer reviewed articles by major scholars (Wendy Johnson, Matt McGue, Dorret Boomsma, Robert Plomin, Ian Deary, Douglas Detterman, Nicholas Martin and many others) that IQ-type intelligence very strongly affects academic achievement; thus there really is no valid reason that this article omits linkage of race differences in intelligence to race differences in academic achievement. Again to summarize, this proposed name change is just another effort to try to strangle and suppress the true import and implications of race differences in intelligence.Rafrye (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think it should be pointed out that WeijiBaikeBianji has been renaming the other "Intelligence" articles all day, starting this morning. So far he's successfully renamed Height and intelligence, Sex and intelligence, Religiosity and intelligence, Health and intelligence, and Fertility and intelligence. Every single one of these renames was done without discussing it with anyone first. Note that the reason given for his R&I rename proposal was "for parallelism with other subarticles of Intelligence quotient and for agreement with the mainstream recent literature of psychology and related disciplines." This was posted literally while he was in the process of renaming the other articles, and this is the only one he's bothered discussing with anyone first. (As soon as I linked to "Fertility and intelligence" in my original comment as something consistent with this article's current title, he changed that one too!) Does this strike anyone else as a bit... odd? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the best way of dealing with any problem you might have with other renameings is to bring them up on the appropriate talk pages. aprock (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a specific problem with other individual renamings that I'm taking issue with here (though they're probably problems also, as per Rafrye's explanation). The issue here is that he used this as one of his MAIN lines of reasoning in urging a rename on this article: "for parallelism with other subarticles of Intelligence quotient." The key word is "parallelism." These other "intelligence" articles were NOT parallel to his R&I rename suggestion before this morning, when he mass-changed all of them at once. Let's look at the sequence of events:
1. WBB renames four articles without discussing it beforehand, which goes against the instructions given here.
2. He then suggests renaming this article, and one of his central arguments for the rename is that the new name should be consistent with all of these other intelligence-related articles that he had just renamed.
3. I point out that the new suggested name would not be consistent with a load of other intelligence articles, and cited Fertility and intelligence as an example.
4. Immediately after this, WBB renames the fertility article too.
The point is, his "parallelism" argument means nothing if the only reasons these other articles have this name at all is because he renamed them all this morning without discussing it with anyone. I could use the same argument if I wanted to rename this article "Race and postage stamps" and before proposing that change, I renamed every similar article to include "postage stamps" in the title. At least it would be consistent then!
Additionally, I think it's a bit unfair for the onus to be on me (or Victor or Rafrye) for bringing this up on the talk pages of the other articles to get a consensus for reverting the name change. WBB violated customary procedure by renaming them without discussion, so I think it would make the most sense for the renames to be reverted, and THEN Weiji makes an argument on the talk page for renaming and achieves consensus before the names are changed. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment - and that's my concern here. Too many editors think that it's OK to use sloppy, imprecise kanguage in Misplaced Pages. Now that's something I totally oppose. This article too often uses the terms IQ and intelligence as if they are interchangeable, and treats race too often as if it has a precise definition, after correctly telling us that it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You can't manufacture precision where it doesn't exist. The convoluted syntax of the proposed title doesn't improve anything. --Cant1lev3r (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The proposed title is clumsy, but the current one is somewhat dishonest. My preference is for the whole article to disappear. It's built on a very shoddy base. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
℞ Hopkins, Kenneth D.; Stanley, Julian C. (1981). Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation (sixth ed.). Engelwood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-236273-2. 
