Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is 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: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors. Advocacy: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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.

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

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 [1]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201008/the-flynn-effect-and-iq-disparities-among-races-ethnicities-and-nations-

There is a very good article about new explanation to difference intelligent between races, based on the Flynn effect. I believe this explanation should be included. 94.159.192.163 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Actually it talked also about the connection between literacy and IQ.94.159.192.163 (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it already is included.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually while there is a section about the Flynn Effect, the claim of this article is NOT included. the section say that we don't know the reason for the Flynn Effect, while this article do suggest some explanation for the Flynn Effect.In fact the article claim that some research show that the Flynn Effect is a product of literacy change. More over the article refer directly to the research that the book "the bell curve" used.It show that the test they used actually tested literacy.

In short the claim of the wikipedia article, "# Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental.

Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin." doesn't tell the whole story.

It doesn't say anything about the finding of the correlation between literacy and mean IQ.94.159.192.163 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I definitely think the suggested cause of the flynn effect should be mentioned in the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The popular article is interesting reading. There are a lot of interesting research projects that have flowed from pondering the Flynn effect. I think the concerns of the kind editor here who has recommended this popular article are somewhat misplaced, however. There really is a direct problem for the hard-hereditarian position on group differences in IQ among "race" groups from the Flynn effect, because the Flynn effect was specifically predicted to be impossible by the authors who were most sure that they had evidence for genetically based racial differences in intelligence. Flynn's path-breaking papers were based on data sets that met specifications set by Arthur Jensen, as (Flynn 1987) makes clear. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that early differences are exacerbated by differences in schooling; later differences correlate more to "between schools" than "between races."

• http://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco7321/papers/hanushek%20rivkin%2002.pdf

As a "study" it would be more a primary source were we to quote directly; however, "cited by 49" per

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=899602727713123280&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=F6qfTJfvGYKclgfctsXsAg&sa=X&oi=science_links&ct=sl-citedby&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQzgIwAQ

so well worth a direct reading. I strongly recommend that the best approach is to read the original as well as representations of the original. The "secondary source" mantra should not get in the way just because we encyclopedically care more about what is said about what was said rather than what was said in the first place. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the good-faith delete for now; however, the gap decrease needs to be cited or some other (cited) statement inserted regarding the progression in, and understanding of, the gap—or the delete will need to stand. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nisbett, "Race, IQ and Scientism," pp. 50-52 in Steven Fraser, ed., The Bell Curve Wars (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).-- mustihussain (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a good source for this - here is the set of pages from your citation [2], and it does not address the size of the decrease that is uncited in the article. On page 50 it mentions (in a quote from The Bell Curve) that the gap has narrowed by .15-.25 standard deviations, but in the article it says "the difference has shrunk from about 1.2 to about 0.8 standard deviations", which is a difference of 0.4. I'll take a look at Weiji's suggestions soon. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of sources. Hunt and Carlson notes this too.

• Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. pp. 151–153. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

• Weiss, Lawrence G.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Coalson, Diane; Raiford, Susan, eds. (2010). WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives. Practical Resources for the Mental Health Professional. Alan S. Kaufman (Foreword). Amsterdam: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-375035-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kaufman source also does not mention anything about the difference having "shrunk from 1.2 to about 0.8 standard deviations." [3] [4] The Weiss source has no page numbers and is a fairly large volume, do you have page numbers handy for the specific data in the article? (Preferably a quote from it actually, since the book does not appear to be browsable at Google Books) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted before, the WAIS-IV book reports the b-w gap as 14.54 points in the 2008 standardization sample. This certainly does not support Flynn and Dickens' claims.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure OR. Please stick to reliable sourcing. aprock (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Nisbett's new book, "intelligence and how to get it”? according to a book review in new york times [5] the gap is now 9.5 points among 12-year-olds.-- mustihussain (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaps differ by age; one age can't be taken as fully representative, that's why we need a proper citation for the statement regarding the overall gap or need to craft something else that we can properly cite. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaps also differ by brand of IQ test, and in any event IQ points are not measurement units (nor are the standard deviation units used to derive IQ standard scoring). There are also cohort effects to consider. That's why it's encyclopedic and fair to the sources to say that there is a gap (there is, at the moment) and that the gap has been generally decreasing, but not to specify the size of the gap with much exactitude in the lede. And of course the article text, probably beginning right from the lede, has to make clear that both the significance and the cause of the gap are matters of considerable dispute. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9i7a_race-and-intelligence-1-7_school

I believe this video should be included in the External links.Oren.tal (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's weak.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why do you think so?Oren.tal (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of providing links to Dailymotion. What is the authorized original source of the video with no copyright violation? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, it is channel 4 documentary about the issue. so that is why I think it should be included.Oren.tal (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC) http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo[reply]

I think the channel four documentary is probably a good external link - but it should be to the channel4 website not to a videosharing website where the content may be illegal or the link may break.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is going to include external links, I think some of the old links it used to have should be considered. I found these in a version of the article from around the time of mediation, but they've disappeared for some reason since then.

Collective statements

• APA Task Force Examines the Knowns and Unknowns of Intelligence
• Statement on "Race" and Intelligence. American Anthropological Association. Adopted December 1994.
• Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Intelligence, v24 n1 p. 13–23 January–February 1997

Review papers

• James Flynn and Charles Murray debate – news summary
• June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.
• Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen
• There Are No Public-Policy Implications Robert J. Sternberg
• What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis is True? Linda S. Gottfredson
• Heredity, Environment, and Race Differences in IQ Richard E. Nisbett
• The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and Its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson
• Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen
• Race, Genetics and IQ Richard E. Nisbett (PDF)
• The Inequality Taboo Charles Murray archived version
• Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen

Might not want to re-include all of them, but I think they're at least more relevant than a TV documentary.

In general I think that including documentaries is a pretty bad idea. In an area of legitimate science a documentary looks pretty pathetic next to actual published research. I can't count how many times I've seen paleontology documentaries completely dumbing down and misrepresenting the topic - sometimes not even intentionally. This happens all the time with science documentaries directed at the general public, so I think it's best to keep them out of the article regardless of the perspective that they take. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Flynn & Murray debate should be included in External Links. It's a rather informative discussion between two prominent scholars in the field.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the texts should be in the sources - not in the external links.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [6]. Exactly what policy prevents linking to a related article? If there are any problems with sources in the other aricles it should be noted there but that numerous peer-reviewed articles have cited and used the IQ scores establishes notability and some academic acceptance.Miradre (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry-- I'm new at this and my ref tags got messed up. Removed the stuff recently added by full shunyata because we can't cite wikipedia directly, and the other stuff I removed looks like synth because its cited to papers that aren't discussing Lynn's conclusions. -SightWatcher (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]