Talk:Race and intelligence

Older discussions are archived here:

For what it is worth, I do agree with both Ericd and Tannin, at least as Tannin represents the debate. I believe that all human beings (absent some neurological trauma) are capable of complex symbolic thought, and that this capacity is a product of our evolution -- beyond that, I think any definition of intelligence is culture-bound; I also think races are real and important but not in any biological or transcendent or essential way, only as social constructions.

But I also know there are many people out there, including people with PhD.s in psychology and biology, who disagree with us. As I mentioned to Ericd before, if we deleted this article, someone would just write an article presenting races, intelligence, and their corelation as fact.

What we need is an article that is truly NPOV -- which is as important when we happen to be right as when we are wrong. I do not think that this article should try to answer the question "is race real" or "what is intelligence" or "Does education increase intelligence" of "does income increase intelligence." What it should do is provide an informative account of a debate among scientists and others (a debate which, of course, does raise questions like what is intelligence and does it correlate more with genes or socialization -- my point is that the debate itself should be the focus of the article). Tannin, I especially like your comments above about psychological tests for intelligence and I really hope you will put much of that content into the article. Slrubenstein

Naturally people will disagree with you if their invested in making a living sucking state-sector science funds off to 'study' crap like this. Gary

"In early US IQ testing, Americans of African descent, Jews, and other recent immigrants from Europe, were assigned significantly lower average scores (mean of 85) than "white" people (mean of 100), with "Hispanics" somewhere in between. These studies were later rejected as badly flawed for a number of reasons, notably because they did not control for the relationship between IQ and education level or income. Since higher intelligence certainly correlated with better education and higher income - and indeed it is in part defined as the ability to have an education and earn income - the lack of a correction for these factors made the earlier studies scientifically useless. However, some later studies in the same tradition have attempted to make corrections for the lack of control; certain of these make the measured IQ gap only slightly smaller; provided one ignores the vast conceptual problems posed by IQ testing and simply examines the detailed methodological isues, these studies suggest that a significant gap does exist, but, curiously, find no significant IQ gap between "white", "Jewish" and "Asian" people. These studies have received an extremely skeptical reception in the scientific community, partly because of methodological problems in studies in the early 20th century which purported to show large IQ deficits in Irish and southern European immigrants to the United States"

This paragraph is fuzzy about the method. From a statistical POV this kind of studies led to Multiple Correlation Analysis, it would be interresting to see the coeff. for the ethnic group.

It's worth to notice also that recent immigrants are not representative of an ethnic groups. Recent immigrants were generally not members of the upper-class in their country of origin. The social bias is obvious. Ericd 17:08 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

This article needs subheadings to break it up into logical sections.

I agree, although I do not have the time right now and I wouldn't want to make major changes (even if only in the organization of the article) without getting Ericd and Tannin's imput, or others. But I would suggest:

A brief account of the controversy (basic facts about Burt, Jensen, and Murry & Hernstein)
A very very brief mention of controversies about "race" and a link to that article
"Intelligence"
1. debates over the reality of "g"
2. issues in measuring "g"
the realtionship between heredity and IQ scores
1. what does correlation mean?
2. what does heritability mean?
the relationship between socioeconomic status and IQ scores

What do others think? Does anyone want to start on this? Slrubenstein

I rewrote parts of the introduction, I'll explain why: I deleted the following: "Since ancient times, intelligence (or "wisdom") has been considered a valuable attribute of human beings, and many writers have described how this attribute may be found or bestowed or developed." because it is fluff -- what doe we mean, "since ancient times?" And valued by whom? Socrates was wise and they killed him. I deleted the following "Many scholars, such as anthropologists and psychologists have described or speculated upon a cause-and-effect relationship between race and intelligence, most frequently suggesting that skin color correlates with (or "determines") one's intelligence level." only because I think the rest of the intro makes this clear (I have no substantive problem with the sentence). I replaced both of these sentences with a well-informed and historically accurate and more specific account, focusing on the West and detailing changing debates that started in the 17th century and continued into the 19th century -- more informative than "since ancient times" I think.

I deleted this "Towards the end of the 20th century, there has arisen considerable debate among natural, behavioral, and social scientists, as to the reality of this relationship." since it is wrong, the debate began in the early 20th century and I made this clear. I deleted "Some of this debate veers off into social science and politics, focusing on the extent to which race and intelligence are meaningful terms, with some writers rejecting the concept of "races" entirely (more on this aspect of the debate at Race)." because the "veering off" is editorializing and bizarre -- the subject of the sentence includes "social scientists" yet the predicate has them "veering off" into social science -- how is that a "veer?" Moreover, the question of "the extent to which race and intelligence are meaningful terms" is in no way a "veering off," it is a central methodological and theoretical question to the scientific issue at hand.

I also reinserted "important" before genetic differences; this is vague, I admit, but incontestable Slrubenstein

I see work on this article has been mostly dormant for about half a year. That's too bad, because it's going to need a lot of work to get it up to par. As we learned on the Race page (which is finally a pretty damn good article), topics like this require an incredible amount of threshing out until just the right tone, balance and detail are achieved. The hand of Slrubenstein is apparent in large blocks here, and that means the article has much good material to build on and riff off of. But as earnest as Slr is in his efforts to maintain NPOV, true balance awaits the contributions of some reasonable person coming from a distinctly different angle. I'd be a decent candidate for this myself, but I haven't been actively studying these questions for quite a while now, and my powers of recall have been feeble of late. So, if there's anyone out there with some serious study in this field under your belt, and you don't reflexively dismiss people like Arthur Jensen as perpetrators of "bad science", please step up and weave the facts as you see them into this piece. At the very least, The Voice of Gould needs either strong counterweighting or liberal trimming. JDG 06:02, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the second paragraph because I find it to be difficult to understand in parts. I look forward to improvements from others. Rikurzhen

Slrubenstein, I like your modifications, but I'm not sure I understand the second sentence of the second paragraph: "Many continue to use "race" as a biologically meaningful and useful term... (see Race)." Especially at two points: (1) "genetic similarities within races are mutable" -- do you mean that the genetic properties of races are accidental (i.e. not necessary, such that an African need not necessarily have dark skin)? If so I agree, but mutable in this case is trivially true, since any inherited trait can be changed by mutation. (2) "the relationship between inherited traits and learned traits is either tenuous or complex" -- are you talking about multifactorial traits, which have both genetic and environmental determinants? If so, wouldn't it be better to say "many traits have both genetic and environmental determinants." Rikurzhen

I changed accidental back to mutable for two reasons. First, the major contribution of Darwin was to conceive of species, subspecies, and races as statistical and not essential (an unchanging) things. "Mutable" does not necessarily refer to genetic mutation, it is a good English word for "changing" and if you feel that that word would be better, you cahn change mutable to changable. The second reason is, the differences between species, between subspecies, and, for those who use the term, races, is not accidental. Darwin's whole argument -- one still accepted, though added to, by the modern synthesis -- is that these differences are not accidental, they are products of natural selection. It is variation within a population that is "accidental" (or may be accidental, or, for Darwin at least, incidental) -- that is, differences among individuals. But this sentence is not talking about differences among individuals, it is talking about differences among races -- so "accidental" is wrong, and "mutable" is right.

By accidental, I meant Accidental properties. So I meant, those properties of races that are not essential to races, which is what I thought you meant by mutable: the major races could continune to exist even if their accidential properties changed. Albiet these properties may be biologically meaningful. Does this need further clarification? Rikurzhen

The fact that some inherited traits are incidental to one's "race" is important (though not accidental -- I am thinking of blood-type in many cases, or wet versus dry ear-wax); so is the fact that some mutations are neutral in the sence of being neither adaptive nor maladaptive. But this valid but very nuanced point of yours belongs, I think, in some other article -- perhaps race, but even biologists and physical anthropologists who donot use the term race recognize this, so maybe it is even more suited to the articles on evolution or population genetics (with a link, in this article). Slrubenstein

as for "tenuous and complex" this may just be a matter of semantics. I think most biologists would have no objection to your formulation. But phenotype has other determinations, so to be accurate you should right, "have a variety of determinants, among them both genetic and environmental." Nevertheless, most debates over "is the concept of race inherantly racist" hinge not so much on whether racial differences are "nature" or "nurture" (although this is how the debate is often presented in the popular media) -- it is whether some traits which are highly heritable (e.g. skin color) correlate positively with traits which are not as highly heritable (e.g. intelligence, moral values), and if so, why -- in other words, the issue at stake is not whether some trait has both heritable and environmental determinants (although to be clear I recognize that this is an important part of the debate), it is a little more complex. Slrubenstein

Stevertigo, I'm afraid that as it is the first paragraph isn't NPOV and if read literally isn't true. I'm moving it here with an explanation below. (1) There are still many researchers who give considerable merit to the premise that the average intelligence of individuals in different races are not equal. Although as it stands this article hardly even states their position. (Not your fault.) (2) "Superficial distincion" could refer to surface traits or trivial traits or both. However, this is not true. Consider the association of the sickle cell allele beta globin, which is associated with African populations. The sickle cell phenotype is neither constrained to the surface nor trivial. (3) There must be hundreds or thousands of loci in the human genome that demonstrate non-random distributions among "races," so seemingly melanin distribution in skin and the epicanthic fold are not the "only" race associated physiologies. Consider for example the associations between certain disease propensities and races.Rikurzhen

A relationship between race and intelligence was until recently given substantial merit among Western European scientists. It is now largely considered to be a relic of unscientific thinking. In light of recent DNA studies, the concept of "race" has been definitively and substantially confined to a largely superficial distinction-- its only physiological meanings being: to vary the degrees by which melanin blocks the human body's ability to process vitamin D from sunlight. In the case of Asian peoples, the epicanthic fold developed as protection from snowblindness, as they first migrated north into northeastern Russia and Asia over 30,000 years ago.

Your claims are incorrect, and exagerrated. Races do exist, and they do have important genetic differences which result in differing phenotypes. Now, the 19th century concept of races has certainly been demolished, sure. Back then they viewed different human races almost as different species. (This has recently been discussed in other articles.) But the modern scientific 21st century concept of races is much more subtle, and fact based, and should not be dismissed due to political correctness. One we let political ideology prevent us from discussing a scientific topic, we are in a situation of censorship. RK 21:55, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I removed it. Rikurzhen 07:59, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

I may have gotten the description of the decision time tests backwards. Can anyone confirm my description?

In the section "IQ Gap Among Races", the following sentence appears: "It is difficult to imagine that people could be motivated during one part of the test but motivated during the other."

Is there a missing "not" in there?

Ericd rightly restored a passage someone had deleted without explanation. It was not I who deleted it. Nevertheless, now that I have read that paragraph carefully, I believe it ought to be deleted. As far as I can understand it, the paragraph makes two claims: that all people are stupid, and that this claim is not a scientific claim. Given that the first claim is unattributed (just who are these people, anyway?) and given that half the paragraph is dedicated to explaining that the theory hasn't and may not be able to be tested, I think that the whole paragraph is at best a joke and perhaps a mockery of the article. I certainly don't think it adds anything of value. Given that Ericd just restored it, I won't delete it just yet. But can anyone give me a good argument for keeping it? I think it is embarrassing! Slrubenstein

last paragraph should go; others are hard to read

That last paragraph really should go.

Even for someone familiar with a lot of the of the source material, this article seems hard to read. Does anyone one else think it could use some simplification -- maybe an opening summary? Some short and direct statements about what the central questions/positions are? --Rikurzhen 09:28, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I have just added the sentence in italics to the article:

Today virtually all scientists agree that no single characteristic, trait or even gene (i.e. haplotype) distinguishes all the members of one race from all the members of another race. (Similarly, no single characteristic, trait or gene always distinguishes all members of one species from all the members of another closely related species.)

The reason that I added this sentence was to add some very significant context. The original statement has been used by many writers, and in recent years, a growing number of scientists, to "prove" that race does not exist, and that it is merely a social construct. However, that position is false. While the facts in the sentence are correct, these facts simply do not lead to the radical conclusion that races do not exist. If one took that view, one could also deny the fact that different species exist! I thus am adding this additional information to disabuse people from using a straw-man argument. RK 16:08, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Consider Wikipedia's (correct) description of what a species is (this is the same definition used in most college textbooks)

The biological species or isolation species concept identifies a species as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. This is generally the most useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It distinguishes between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations. For example, it is possible to cross a horse with a donkey and produce offspring, however they remain separate species—in this case for two different reasons: first because horses and donkeys do not normally interbreed in the wild, and second because the fruit of the union is rarely fertile. The key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations.

A similar definition of "species", proposed by Ernst Mayr is, "Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Because of this, scientists can (and do) categorize the dwarf Cambell's Russian hamster as a separate species from the Winter White (aka Siberian) dwarf hamster. These two species obviously came from a common ancestor relatively recently in biological history, but over time they spread to different locals, and became reproductively isolated, and developed diferent colorations, food preferences, and habits. However, since this definition is accepted as valid for all other animals on Earth, why are humans now considered the only exception to this rule? Following this rule, European Caucasians, Australian Aboriginees, and African Negros all would not only have been separate races, but in fact separate species. (This obviously changed with the breakdown of reproductive isolation that we have had in the past few centuries)

Now, I understand that in the past people mis-used this idea, and (wrongly) assumed that if species different, one must be more "advanced" than another. Some people therefore decided that the Caucasians were more advanced that Negros, and used this idea to justify racism. This is wrong. But we don't need to abandon scientific definitions (which imply that races are real, and not social constructs) in order to abandon incorrect thinking which leads to racism. RK 16:19, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

RK, the problem with your addition is that it is argumentative. I mean, literally -- as your comments here make clear, you are using it to make an argument (Some people claim that race is socially constructed; race shares a feature with species; species are real; thus, race is real). There are two problems with this. First, arguments should be explicit, and not worked into the text in this way. Second, this argument should be represented, but as an argument (that is, some people claim tha races are biologically real, others claim it is socially constructed; Wikipedia endorses neither view but explains both views -- NPOV policy). In the talk above you are arguing for this position. Slrubenstein

I have no problem with this.

For the record, I think you are wrong -- you misunderstand what people mean by "socially constructed" in general, and you misunderstand the argument about races as socially constructed in particular. But RK, it doesn't matter what I think -- and it doesn't matter what you think either! Wikipedia is not the place for our arguments. It is an encyclopedia, not a personal essay or place for primary research. As contributors our task is to research current views and articulate them in an article. If you or I have strong opinions on this material, we ought to find some other venue -- not here! Slrubenstein

I have no problem with this. However, I made the original change because the article was missing context; most people have no idea what it means for animals to be separate species, or sub-species, or breeds. Without this crucial context, the article is meaningless, and could only be polemical. RK 23:40, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, your point is important. However, consider the parallel between the two sentences. Your own criticism could be leveled at the original first sentence. They are either both neutral or both POV. --Rikurzhen 17:33, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the view that race is socially constructed is a POV. But it is a POV that is widely shared by researchers. There is a minority view that races are biologically real. In this situation, NPOV is not achieved by presenting either of these views as neutral, nor by trying to synthesize some compromise view -- it is achieved by presenting both views, explaining who holds them and why. I think that the article in general does a good job of this -- but I think RKs change does not. Slrubenstein

I completely agree that NPOV is not achieved by presenting either of these views as neutral, nor by trying to synthesize some compromise view. BCorr|Брайен 13:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SLR, we need to phrase this carefully. This point of view, in its strong form, is not widely shared by most scientists. Rather, most scientists reject the extreme distortions of what the word "race" has come to represent. However, most scienists do not reject the existence of races (or sub-species) as a meaningful biological category. It is increasingly important in medical research, as many drugs have been found to have different effects in different races (or ethnic groups, sub-species, whatever word you prefer.) RK 23:40, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

RK, I believe that the counter point you are recognizing is important to make, but I think it can be done more effecitvely if it is said directly. Also, I think that your sentence makes a claim that is too strong. I suspect that for every set of closely related species, there is at least one haplotype that can distinguish the two species.

I suggest that the new sentence should be replaced with a more direct one. Something like: This fact has been widely understood to limit the nature of human races. However, many researchers continue to believe that race has a real biological basis. --Rikurzhen 17:33, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

That's fine by me - but the great majority of scientists believe that races (or use whatever other word you wish) really do exist. Its not just a minority, as some people here believe. They don't believe that races are totally different species, or that one is superior to another, but they recognize the reality of these different groupings. (And they also recognize that races are not disappearing, with more travel between regions.) RK

RK -- I think that the arguments you've made above are confusing the difference between subspecies, breeds, and races. I also agree that it's argumentative, and rather than providing context, it blurs the real point of the sentence that precedes your addition. -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that I am confusing the issue; Rather, I am trying to address both a science issue as well as a linguistic issue. Very few people describe blacks, whites and asians as subspecies or as breeds. Insteads, they use the word race. For a variety of reasons, people refuse to use the same terminology for humans as they use for the rest of life on Earth. We certainly could refer to Blacks, Whites, Aboriginees, and Asians as breeds, or as subspecies, but instead English speakers seem to have settled on the word "races". (I have no preference.) RK

There are no precise definitions for when a group is considered a subspecies, species, or a genus. For some animals, a certain amount of variation has given different groups the status of separate species. Yet for other unrelated animals, the same amount of variation has given different groups the status of different genus, or different sub-species! There's nothing "unfair" about this; It is just that different groups of biologists are giving names to different groups of animals, and there never has been any precise definition of when to use the designation for genus, species, or sub-species. So how do we discuss groups of humans? We need to use some English word, right? People seem to use the word "race". But you can use any words you like; my point is that whatever word we use, we need to recognize that actual differences between humans exist! Thus, one must use some word to describe this difference. RK

The real problem is that most of society is incapable of discussing this issue rationally. Some deny that biological differences exist; that is insane. Others claim that differences imply that one group is intrinsically superior to all others; that conclusion does not logically follow, and I find little evidence to support this claim. (Even if such variation existed, it is so small as to to have no real meaning.) Others admit that real differences exist, but they use cognative dissonance and refuse to use words like Race, breed or sub-species. That's no good; that is just refusing to discuss the issue honestly. (How would they describe our differences? By flavor?) I think that in an article on science, we should not be afraid to use scientific terminology. RK 23:35, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Intelligence and culture is real

The article currently states:

Anthropologists have argued that intelligence is a cultural category; some cultures emphasize speed and competition more than others, for example. Tests based on word skills cannot accurately measure learning ability. And most IQ tests ask people to solve problems most often encountered in middle class settings.

Yes, but there is no contradiction! People with middle-class educations usually have a much more rigorous education from kindergarten on up through college, as well as much richer lingustic development in the home, especially during the critical years from one to five, when most neural development in thinking and word-procesing occurs. In other words, of course the culture affects the education and the resulting intelliegence. However, the conclusion is preciselt the opposite of what the article says. The real conclusion is that some cultures lead to children (and then adults) with a higher IQ, i.e. a higher ability to perform problem-solving and a higher ability to engage in abstract thinking. It is not a question of nurture versus nature; the nurturing leads to physiological changes within the brain. RK 23:49, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

The article also says:

Low IQ scores are often the result of the subject speaking a different language or dialect than the test questions, or being given the test by someone from another ethnic group, or simply being tired, malnourished, or ill. IQ tests do not measure mental ability, they do measure enculturation. During WWI African-Americans from the north tested higher than those from the south. This is simply because African-Americans in the north had received more formal education (see Race: Science and Politics, written by Ruth Benedict in 1940).

This is all true, but again, the conclusion is precisely the opposite of what the full paragraph implies. The only conclusion available from the data in this paragraph is that this formal education led to higher IQ! The same is true for an article about height and nutrition. Would anyone deny that in many Asian countries, Asians were shorter on average than European and American whites? No, that was a measurable fact. But after Asian countries modernized food production and distribution, malnutrition ended in many places, and well...we now have tall Asians kicking ass in American basketball. Would anyone argue that Asians are not any taller than 100 years ago? That would be crazy. Of course many Asians are taller, and they are taller due to changes in their upbringinf and environment, specifically nutrition. The fact that we can explain this change does not mean that the chang does not exist! The same is true for culture, education and intelligence (however you define the word). Changing one's culture and education will change a child's ability to understand abstract thinking, problem-solving and the ability to master new techniques (which is what IQ often refers to in practice.) RK 23:54, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Culture of poverty leads to real neural damage

To back up what I am saying above, please read the following paper: It does not say that Blacks and Hispancis are genetically inferior to Whites and Asians. However, in the USA many blacks and hispanics have a culture which prevents their children from fully developing their brains, and this can be accurately measured. The differences in mental ability between many inner-city kids and middle-class white families is staggering large, and obvious as early as five years old, and gets worse as time passes. This is probably the real reason for the observed IQ gap. The good news is that there is nothing genetic or racial about this, and that the article shows that an educationally rich upbringing is the key to the issue.

Researchers have gathered new evidence on the importance of the first years of life for children's emotional and intellectual development. Unfortunately, millions of American children are poor during these crucial years. Almost one in four (24 percent) of America's children under age three lived in poverty in 1995. These 2.8 million poor children face a greater risk of impaired brain development due to their exposure to a number of risk factors associated with poverty.

Many poor young children are resilient and able to overcome tremendous obstacles but poverty poses serious threats to children's brain development. Recent advances in the study of brain development show a sensitive period when the brain is most able to respond to and grow from exposure to environmental stimulation. This window of optimal brain development is from the prenatal period to the first years of a child's life. While all children are potentially vulnerable to a number of risk factors which can impede brain development during this sensitive period, a disproportionate number of children in poverty are actually exposed to such risk factors.

The article discusses the neural damage to many black and hispanic children due to inadequate nutrition, substance abuse of the children's parents, the high incidence of maternal depression, the exposure to environmental toxins, psychological trauma, and the neural effects of physical abuse. It is little wonder that the IQ gap exists. The problem is that too many people deny that it exists, thus allowing the problem to continue. My POV is that this view is effectively racist. A better attitude would be to admit that problems exist, and work on correcting them, as a healthy upbrining and good education should be the right of all children, and not just just for middle-class white and asian children.

Sources "Poverty and Brain Development in Early Childhood" http://www.nccp.org/pub_pbd99.html

The 30 million word gap by age 3

There is an IQ difference between middle- and upper-class white children, and lower-class and welfare blacks and Hispanic children; the only questions are (a) Why does this gap exist, and (b) How can we close the gap? The above article sumamrize many reasons for the difference (i.e. the large amount of neurological damage, i.e. brain damage) But there is another terrifying difference: Many blacks and hispanics never are given the opportunity to fully develop their brains - they literally never hear millions of words during the time when their brains are developing lingustic skills! Without this linguistic input during their developing years, many are observed to quickly fall behind, and they can never catch up.

A linear extrapolation from the averages in the observational data to a 100-hour week (given a 14-hour waking day) shows the average child in the professional families with 215,000 words of language experience, the average child in a working-class family provided with 125,000 words, and the average child in a welfare family with 62,000 words of language experience. In a 5,200-hour year, the amount would be 11.2 million words for a child in a professional family, 6.5 million words for a child in a working-class family, and 3.2 million words for a child in a welfare family. In four years of such experience, an average child in a professional family would have accumulated experience with almost 45 million words, an average child in a working-class family would have accumulated experience with 26 million words, and an average child in a welfare family would have accumulated experience with 13 million words. By age 4, the average child in a welfare family might have 13 million fewer words of cumulative experience than the average child in a working-class family. This linear extrapolation is shown in the graph below.

Please, please read the above study before contributing to this Wikipedia article. It is time to stop denying that such difference exist; that effectively stops a search for the problem, and prevents us from finding solutions. That effectively is racist, damning many minority children to a very poor future. Instead of denying the problem, how about studying it scientifically, and look for real-world solutions? RK 00:22, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Source: The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3 Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley, American Educaton, Spring 2003

http://www.aft.org/american_educator/spring2003/catastrophe.html

Point of order

There is a separate article devoted to race. It seems unnecessary to re-hash that entire debate in this article. Right?--Rikurzhen 04:37, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Heavy reading

Here are two articles in press that are worth considering. They both directly relate to the question of race and intelligence.

--Rikurzhen 04:38, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)