Talk:Heritability of IQ - Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 16:08, 22 January 2025 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Heritability of IQ/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 16:08, 22 January 2025 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Heritability of IQ/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heritability of IQ article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Heritability of IQ is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Human Genetic History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History

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 Heritability of IQ, 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.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – 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.

Enhancing the Article on Heritability of IQ

Hi, I’m a student from Uskudar University. I edit the article 'Heritability of IQ' as an assignment for my course Biotechnology in Neurosciences. I already completed Misplaced Pages training modules to be proficient in Misplaced Pages editing. I plan to add a paragraph discussing a study that explores the evidence for the predominance of genetic influences on adult intelligence under the 'Estimates' section. Additionally, I am considering introducing a new section to explore the future aspects of the heritability of IQ. Any support or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Bayrakd (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest presenting your sources here first, so they can be discussed. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, here are some of them to start with;

To contribute to the title: influence of parent genes that are not inherited, this one

This source and this source are to be used for further genetics research on intelligence.

Suggesting a new title for discussion: 'Genomic Insights into Intelligence.' Here are two articles as sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37032719/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28530673/

These are the ones for now. I should start editing now because I'm short on time. Please feel free to go through and provide feedback.

Best, Bayrakd (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This is one of Misplaced Pages's more controversial articles, and is under a special 'contentious topics' procedure. You would be better off choosing almost any other article on Misplaced Pages for a student editing project. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would have to agree with MrOllie on that. This is a very complicated topic which can lead to very inflamed emotions and arguments. Not a great choice for a student project. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you are short on time, I will echo what others have said and suggest finding a different topic. Perhaps browsing Category:Biotechnology or Category:Neuroscience would be helpful in finding a different article to focus on. For whatever topic you choose, in general and especially for WP:MEDRS, it is better to cite reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, instead of directly citing individual studies by themselves. Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (science) may also be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the suggestions and information. I was assigned to this article by my instructor. In that case, I will ask her to change the topic.

best wishes Bayrakd (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

explore the future aspects of the heritability of IQ - please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. --WikiLinuz (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Disputed content

I invite Biohistorian15 to discuss their preferred additions to the "Further reading" list here rather than edit warring. My view is that Nathan Cofnas is quite obviously pushing a fringe perspective in these articles, and he is far from being a notable scholar in his own right. Simply having been published in a peer-reviewed journal does not in itself warrant inclusion in a curated list such as "Further reading". Generalrelative (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting back an edit of yours that is furthermore written in a seriously accusatory tone is not edit warring (cf. WP:3RR). I'd also hereby like to warn Generalrelative that presumption of good faith in matters as sensible as these is important!

It is your personal opinion that this scholar is not notable, but even if one of your frankly strange RFC's declared some stuff "fringe", this certainly does not concern the respective scholars other works. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The contention that a paper called "Research on group differences in intelligence" does not fall under the race and intelligence topic area is so dubious as to strain the bounds of what is required by AGF. And we rely on editor judgement all the time in determining what is reliable and due for article space. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The article concerns the ethics of conducting the aforementioned research. As such is is clearly relevant to the article I included it in. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to see whether others buy your reasoning here. Generalrelative (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care all that much about these particular additions I made (*for one, they might be more relevant over at "race and intelligence" article now that I think about it...), but am disturbed by the immediate presumption of bad faith. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You've been editing in very contentious areas lately, and your choices of sourcing are... dubious. It might be best to slow down a bit. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting way to word things. I am keenly interested in what I perceive to be certain intimidation tactics present at articles like this one. Please specify reasons for a disagreement or do not engage in this conversation (cf. WP:NOTFORUM). Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a NOTFORUM issue, nor is it an intimidation tactic. It's experienced editors warning you that your current approach is going past bold and becoming disruptive. And your phrasing adds more fuel to the fire that you're here to WP:RGW, rather than editing to improve the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:FURTHER. I don't think either of the links you posted would be suitable for this article. Probably somewhere else like Race and intelligence, but not here. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Cofnas also got in trouble recently for an op-ed he wrote clearly pushing a particular view of the debate, which makes me question including his work as a neutral source. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that rules him out as a reliable source on this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(relatively) new expert survey

Please don't reopen months-old discussions. Either take the source to WP:RSN or move on. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd suggest adding 'Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media' . The page as is cites a lot of individual opinions but is kind of light on expert surveys and meta analyses. Hi! (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The journal Intelligence is not a reliable source on the subject of this article, and cannot be relied upon to define "expert" in a neutral way, since the journal is controlled by people with a strong POV in favor of hereditarian views on intelligence that have been rejected by a consensus of geneticists. The journal serves as an echo chamber for opinions that conflict with mainstream science. NightHeron (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

One thing I'd also point out is that there is an extensive history of Hereditarians manipulating surveys such as these in order to inflate the appearance of support for their views; see eg. - it's a reason to be skeptical of shocking or unusual outcomes from historically hereditarian-leaning journals, especially if they're not getting much coverage outside of that bubble. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it might be a useful addition to the article. Despite the regular line from a couple of editors here, Intelligence is a highly respected and regularly cited journal in the field of intelligence research, and you won't find record of anyone notable in the field stating otherwise. In fact if you care to look at that journal's article here on Misplaced Pages, even the two critical comments from journalists included both specify that it is one of the more respected journals in the field. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"highly respected" went out the window when they had white supremacists on their editorial board. MrOllie (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that New Statesman and Smithsonian Magazine trump your personal opinion, as does a healthy H-index and top-quartile rankings among cognitive and developmental psychology journals (per SJR for the year of this survey publication). Were there noted white supremacists on the board in 2020? Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Lynn and Meisenberg no longer serve on the editorial board. It doesn't make sense for Misplaced Pages to exclude articles from a well-respected journal just because of the views of former editors. Stonkaments (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The proper place to debate this would be WP:RSN. We're not going to create a local consensus at odds with longstanding, topic-wide practice on this article's talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This would be at odds with no broader consensus, as Intelligence appears as a source in the topic area. It could be of course that you've recently purged it, in which case I hope you did discuss it at WP:RSN prior. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources exist on a spectrum, but my understanding is that Intelligence has been (quite rightfully) historically considered a source with fringe leanings on the topic and which therefore needs to be used with caution, if it at all, especially when it comes to anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The fact that it may have been used in a few places for uncontroversial stuff doesn't make it a good source for contested things. And, in any case, the thing to do is to take it to WP:RSP either way, not to just try and insert it for a controversial claim when you know there's an active dispute over it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I changed a sentence in the opening section which reads "The scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups" to "The scientific consensus is that it is currently unknown how much genetics explains average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups". This is in line with the Hunt reference given. This has been reverted with the claim that such an idea is "fringe". I am at a loss to imagine how a view cited to a well regarded textbook on the subject published by Cambridge University Press could be such a thing. And you have used this reference to write something it doesn't say. Perhaps the reverter can explain. Raffelate (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC) It is plainly not 'in line with the Hunt reference given'. Here is the quote from the reference actually attached to the claim in the article, which is from Ceci et al.: There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC) And Ceci et al. is just the first cite there - six are given. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC) The Hunt reference is absolutely clear that causes are unknown and more research is needed. I must charitably assume that you did not look at it to imagine that what I wrote was not completely in line with it. Should we remove this reference to match your preferred POV? Or should we report that there is no consensus on an explanation? Raffelate (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC) The editor above now appears to be adding quotes out of context and misrepresenting the thrust of the text. Egregious. Raffelate (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC) It is your version that is a plain misrepresentation of what Hunt has to say on the topic. To quote Hunt: o genes related to the difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC) You really need to read to read the whole page, which I'm sure you did to cherry pick that section. And even there "Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered". So Hunt is saying the science is settled? Clearly not. It's rather depressing that such brazen liars are allowed free rein around here. What's going on? Raffelate (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC) It's rather depressing that such brazen liars are allowed free rein around here. I entirely agree. MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I changed a sentence in the opening section which reads "The scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups" to "The scientific consensus is that it is currently unknown how much genetics explains average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups". This is in line with the Hunt reference given. This has been reverted with the claim that such an idea is "fringe". I am at a loss to imagine how a view cited to a well regarded textbook on the subject published by Cambridge University Press could be such a thing. And you have used this reference to write something it doesn't say. Perhaps the reverter can explain. Raffelate (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is plainly not 'in line with the Hunt reference given'. Here is the quote from the reference actually attached to the claim in the article, which is from Ceci et al.: There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And Ceci et al. is just the first cite there - six are given. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The Hunt reference is absolutely clear that causes are unknown and more research is needed. I must charitably assume that you did not look at it to imagine that what I wrote was not completely in line with it. Should we remove this reference to match your preferred POV? Or should we report that there is no consensus on an explanation? Raffelate (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The editor above now appears to be adding quotes out of context and misrepresenting the thrust of the text. Egregious. Raffelate (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is your version that is a plain misrepresentation of what Hunt has to say on the topic. To quote Hunt: o genes related to the difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You really need to read to read the whole page, which I'm sure you did to cherry pick that section. And even there "Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered". So Hunt is saying the science is settled? Clearly not. It's rather depressing that such brazen liars are allowed free rein around here. What's going on? Raffelate (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's rather depressing that such brazen liars are allowed free rein around here. I entirely agree. MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Percentages vs. bare numbers

The article starts out using percentages, eg. "Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%," but then later similar statistics are given as bare numbers, eg. "Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5 ..." Can we convert all these decimal numbers to percentages? That would increase clarity and readability. Daask (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: