Talk:Race and intelligence (explanations)

see talk archives at Talk:Race and intelligence

false dichotomy in title

"Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation" is total POV. This is not the debate. The debate is:

• entirely environmental variation
• entirely genetic variation
• both genetic and environmental variation
• insufficient data

It's not an either/or. I recommend "race and intelligence (heredity vs. environment)" or something along those lines. Jokestress 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This framing is incorrect and deeply POV. There is no support for, no controversy about, and no proponent of "entirely genetic variation" -- it's the very definition of a straw man. There is also little debate about whether the variation is heritable. The central question is whether the same factors that cause variation within races cause variation between races; the major debate is over the possible additional influence of genes on top of cultural influences. The title accurately reflects the debate: is variation all due to culture/environment, or is it partly genetic? I could support using "environment" in the title, but please don't mischaracterize the debate. --DAD ^T 14:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just going off the options presented in the poll on this page. Apparently some people think it's all heredity or all environment. Jokestress 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break, J. 1% of respondents don't constitute a debate; those results quite effectively indicate that there is no significant debate over that position. (I wonder, could you name a single researcher who supports 100% heredity? According to WP:NPOV, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." Go ahead.) As the entire page shows, if you would kindly read it, the debate is about whether culture/environment explains all of the variation, or whether there is some genetic influence. The polling data show that a clear plurality of surveyed researchers support a dual influence, but that "insufficient data" and "all environment" constitute important minority positions. --DAD ^T 15:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Name a single researcher who supports 100% environment. Jokestress 15:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, so many to choose from. Okay, Nisbett. From his recent PPPL article, cited from the Race and intelligence Review Papers section: "On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil." Still waiting... --DAD ^T 15:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Name a single researcher who supports 100% environment.": SJ Gould, Lewontin, Ulrich Neisser,... See also Not in Our Genes. Dd2 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a significant POV that the research is scientifically misconceived and politically suspect. The title assumes the correlation itself is true, when a lot of people are arguing that crap x crap = crap^2. It's like having an article called "jews and pedophilia (culture only or partially genetic explanation)". Jokestress 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV discusses the need to make certain assumptions for certain articles. An article about the specific topic of this debate within the scientific community can rely on race and intelligence or race and intelligence controversy to cover those objections. --Rikurzhen 16:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV also says "Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views." That's what I feel is missing. The developers of this cluster of articles clearly have a POV, and it is reflected in the writing. To be honest, this is not a topic I know a ton about, but I know that important information is omitted and given short shrift throughout these articles. I am frankly unconcerned about who is right or wrong in the debate. My goal is to report the historical and current debate as accurately as possible. There isn't even a simple majority consensus among experts on these issues, and the POV changes significantly between disciplines. That needs to be addressed more clearly. Jokestress 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The only bias the past authors of these articles have had (and we demonstrably have different views on this issue) is that the mainstream opinions of science should be given a full featuring and should be recognized as such in the articles. I strongly support the idea of "teach the controversy" in the context of WP, but it is best to do that in a way that doesn't confuse the science with the controversy. I've already started the race and intelligence controversy article to make sure that everything that could possibly be said about the controversy is said. --Rikurzhen 16:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The science is the controversy. Two sets of controversial interpretations used to make another controversial interpretation. See y'all tomorrow. Jokestress 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

See DAD's comments below. --Rikurzhen 17:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't even a simple majority consensus among experts on these issues. Um? We've been thru this. --Rikurzhen 16:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" a report from the American Psychological Association [1] -- later published as Neisser et al (1996)
• "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" [2] -- later published as Gottfredson (1997) -- a statement signed by 52 intelligence researchers meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence".
• Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing". American Psychologist, 42, 137–144. (some details in this section) while old, this survey probably gives the most honest view of expert opinion, because responses were anonymous -- i.e., no one but the authors know who said what --Rikurzhen 17:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Jokestress, you opened the article with your view of the debate. Because your view is manifestly incorrect, I'm trying to bring you up to speed. The rhetorical stuff about jews and pedophilia doesn't help. Here's my understanding of the debate:

• Some commentators, mostly outside the field, feel that the research is ill-defined, political, in poor taste, or racist. (Addressed on the main page.)
• Within the field, the existence of racial disparity in IQ is beyond significant dispute. The reasons, however, are not. Broadly, the debate concerns environmental and genetic influences. (Addressed in this sub-article.)
  • Many researchers feel that the disparity is 0% genetic, 100% environment
  • Many researchers feel that the disparity is partly genetic and partly environmental.
  • Some researchers feel there's insufficient data.
• The literature covering these positions is vast, contentious, and, at present, inconclusive.

That's what the article covers. --DAD ^T 16:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And the situation is very similar to global warming. Outside the field, for example amongst political figures and pundits, it's popular to say that we don't know enough about global warming and that it is very uncertain. Inside the field, most of what's considered unknown or controversial by public figures is believed to be well established and the controversy turns to matters of causes, models, magntudes, etc. Thus, it is misleading to say that global warming science is the controversy. Rather, the public-expert disagreement is what's notable about global warming, as it is with R&I. Related to this article and its content, consider an example. Satellite temperature measurements doesn't need to rehash the solar-forcing versus green house effect argument; which can be covered by global warming and global warming controversy. Nor does this article need to cover material that is discussed in higher-level and related articles. Lastly, I would not be able to write for the global warming article if I did not read the IPCC concensus statements. We all need to be famaliar with the APA and WSJ concensus reports. --Rikurzhen 17:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You write: "Cultural explanations for the IQ deficit among Blacks and Hispanics compared to Whites and East Asian minorities are complemented – and sometimes challenged – by the observation that East Asian minorities score well on IQ tests and on average enjoy greater economic success than other minorities. Along these lines, East Asians are sometimes referred to as "model minorities". Likewise, Jewish populations have suffered past discrimination and persecution, but do not exhibit an IQ deficit. However, Jews and East Asians are today less discriminated than Blacks."

I don't understand the idea: considering that minorities should have similar IQ just because they are minorities or are discriminated is nonsense. Rather, it is clear that each population has cultural values which build its intelligence, explaining much more easily than genetics why black people with an important part of white ancestry do not perform better in IQ, since this is population is culturally black.

68.125.232.62

anon writes: "A recent study has shown that many American Blacks and Hispanics are raised in homes where their parents speak relatively few sentences, and the sentences usually show only simple grammar. This effect can be compounded in single-parent households, where children are statistically less likely to be exposed to adult-adult conversations."

Can this be verified? While it may seem obvious, it may not be true, so we need a citation. Is there even any evidence that differential exposure to adult langauge account for differential acquisition of language by children. I doubt there are any behavior genetic controlled experiments. --Rikurzhen 17:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Rushton's RK theory

Is discredited by all except himself. As noted, the evidence in some causes is outright fraud. As such, it should not be prominently displayed. Even if it were correct, it is not directly a theory of IQ and should not be mentioned in great detail, any more than the Pioneer Fund should be mentioned in great detail. Ultramarine 11:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when has Rushton's r/K theory been discredited? It's been roundly criticized, but discrediting would require disproof. Where's the disproof? Regardless, it's still a highly significant attempt to explain the IQ gaps in evolutionary terms and therefore warrants a description. The table helps the reader easily grasp the logic behind the theory. Dd2 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rushton's r/K theory

Wiezmann and his associates at York University in Toronto, in 1989, had gone back and checked the sources of information on which Rushton's conclusions are based. This ment going back to the oringinal sources in the literature where Rushton obtained his data, SINCE HE DID NOT DO ANY OF THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES HIMSELF. Wiezmann and his colleagues have documented numerous instances in which Rushton completely misrepresents work that he cites without giving the reader any sense of the problems recognized even by the original investigators or the cautions and reservations they express.

Perhaps the most glaring example of the misuse of the work of others comes in Rushton's attempt to couple anthropometric data to the evolutionary theory of r and K selection. This theory describes what were identified in the 1960s and 1970s as two different sorts of reproductive strategies. According to Rushton, blacks have evolved as r-strategists, while Asians and whites have evolved as K-strategists: Blacks have more offspring but invest less parental care in each, while Asians and whites have fewer offspring but invest more parental care. Moreover, Rushton adds a few characteristics of his own to distinguish r- from K-strategists that have no counterpart in the original theory (which was designed with animal, mostly insect, species in mind). Putting it all together, Rushton's approach is nothing more than the grafting of crude racial stearotypes onto r- and K-selction theory.

Rushton here is being not only racist, but also disingenuous to his reader. He neglects to tell the reader that r- strategists often differ markedly in life span (r-strategists often less than year, K-strategists more than a year;in total life span) and in body size (r-stragtegists small body size, K-stragtegists large) that do not apply to humans. Finally Rushton does not inform the reader that r- and K-selection theory is controversial within the field of evolutionary biology today, and is considered at best to apply only to groups, particulary among insect species.

What Weizmann has shown is that Rushton selectively cites and misrepresents his sources to support his conclusions. Far from being an "honest attempt" to follow the Truth wherever it leads, Rushton seems to be putting a ring through Truth's nose and leading it toward his own barn. In this respect, Rushton has followed well the traditions of his predecessors in the study of racial differences. He has used, abused, distorted, and in some cases virtually falsified his sources. As Wiezmann and his colleagues conclude:..."Rushton not only cites sources which are notcredible, but he consistantly misrepresents the work of others. His summaries of the literature are not only tendentious, but untrustworthy."

There have been many other studies and reviews that firmly discredit Rushton's work. I guess nobody here has been reading them? I also assume that nobody here is familiar with the advances made in genetic research, or cognitive science. I would also like to inform everybody that Rushton, Jensen, Lynn ect. are not geneticists.

Something else to consider: The Black/White difference in average IQ scores in the United States is not 15 points (as in 1960s), but somewhere in the range of 10 and 7 points. Moreoever, Catholics and Protestants in Irleand are known to differ in average IQ scores by as much as 15 points; why not debate this phenomenon on the grounds of genetic difference?

(Richard Lynn is another race-realists who is widely cited and well known for misrepresenting and distorting data, as well as, falsifying statistics.)

P.S. This artical is absolute garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.186.80 (talk)

Rushton did not conduct any empirical studies himself? Perhaps you should look at Rushton's CV or the references section of this article series, where we list numerous empirical studies he conducted himself.

You claimed that Rushton did not mention r-K differences in lifespan and body size. This is outright false; these are indeed mentioned in Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Finally, the fact that some people claim to have discredited Rushton's work does not mean that Rushton's work should not be included in the article. Rather, all arguments should be included and attributed to their authors. Dd2 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

-------------------------------------

All independent examinations has shown it to be false. See the sources in the article. An article should not include every crank theory. As such, it should not be prominently mentioned, especially as it accuses whole groups of people of for example psychopathy. Ultramarine 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

------------------------------------

"and the fundamental prediction of the theory that blacks have a higher frequency of twins is incorrect [25]."

(Sorry, I'm a non-native English speaker)

Perhaps I made a mistake but When I look at the data myself:

All live births

Black total 593,691

White total 3,174,760

Ratio = 0,187

Live births in twin deliveries

Black total 20,423

White total 98,304

Ratio = 0,208

Black ratio of twin deliveries to live births: 20 423/593 691 = 3,44%

White ratio of twin deliveries to live births: 98 304/3 174 60 = 3.09%

Not a statistically significant (P < 95%) difference even with the sample size.

It is still in strong support of Rushton's theory. And if you take account of that he is talking about dizygotic twins only and not all twins, the fundamental prediction still looks correct. The last appreciation should be removed in my opinion.

However, the data on the Chinese and Asians-Americans is sound, but is only one among many :

For example: "After adjustment for age and Quetelet's index, the levels of total and bioavailable testosterone were highest in Asian-Americans, intermediate in African-Americans, and lowest in whites. However, the DHT:testosterone ratio was highest in African-Americans, intermediate in whites, and lowest in Asian-Americans, corresponding to the respective incidence rates in these groups and providing indirect evidence for ethnic differences in 5alpha-reductase enzyme activity."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8672990&dopt=Abstract

Moreover, is the turn of phrase "semi-pornographic like Penthouse" neutral and suited? It is a critism selected just in order to shock, for it is not even a key argument in the original article.

There is also a torrent of old references that date back to the Bell Curve wars, certainly interesting, but without description.

All that makes a more balanced rewriting mandatory, by both sides, in my opinion.

82.225.109.190 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Those live birth numbers are for Whites and Blacks including hispanic members of those groups, but the figures given for non-hispanic Whites and non-hispanic Blacks are more appropriate. The ratio between the non-hispanic figures shows insignificant variance, in my calculation. There could be a number of confounding factors here, though, such as this is measuring twin live births rather than twin conceptions (there are differential racial patterns of live births), differential rates of multiple-birth-boosting fertility treatments, and that Rushton's theory only refers to dizogytic twinning.

Rushton and Jensen's claim is:

"Around the world, the rate of dizygotic (i.e., two-egg) twinning is less than 4 per 1,000 births among East Asians, 8 among Whites, and 16 or greater among Blacks (Bulmer, 1970). Multiple birthing rates have been shown to be heritable, based on the race of the mother, regardless of the race of the father, as found in East Asian–White crosses in Hawaii and White–Black crosses in Brazil (Bulmer, 1970)."[3] --Nectar 15:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's more support for this explanation of the difference between current data and Rushton's data from 1970: The rate of twin births in the US has doubled since 1971 due to older moms and fertility treatments.[4] "One-third of the increase in twins is because of a natural tendency toward twin births in older moms and the other two-thirds to fertility treatments." It's highly likely that there's varying rates of births to older moms and fertility treatment among racial groups.--Nectar 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

JK's removal of large amounts of material

JK removed the intro paragraph and the table of comparisons. This is not appropriate. The reasons given were (1) not supported by citations and (2) straw man. Neither claim is supported. The material in (1) is a direct paraphrasing. The table of comparisons (2) is adapted and expanded from Rushton and Jensen's latest review. The claim that there are two major alternative views is widely supported and it constitutes the consensus view by far. The claim that it is a straw man is extrememly limited -- I know of only one author to make such a claim, and even then this was the only time to may knowledge that they had objected to this otherwise very old manner of characterizing the debate. --Rikurzhen 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Material in #1 was not direct paraphrasing. p311 as cited does not make the claims stated regarding the "consensus of intelligence researchers". Please provide a direct quote if you believe otherwise. #2 is obviously a straw-man, making an assertion that is not representative of the anti-racialist point of view, even if Rushton and Jensen want to present it as a straw-man. --JereKrischel 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1: quotations:

• A century of research strongly supports all five
• (e.g., see the journal Intelligence; Brody, 1992; Deary, 2000; Gottfredson, 1997; Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989; Lubinski, 2004).
• This is hardly the picture of intelligence research that the media and many social scientists paint (e.g., Fish, 2002). Both often suggest that the entire area of measurement of mental abilities, psychometrics, is fundamentally flawed and morally suspect. As Snyderman and Rothman (1988) demonstrated almost two decades ago, however, media portrayals of accepted wisdom on intelligence tend to be the opposite of what experts have actually concluded (e.g., Carroll, 1997). Thus, despite public lore to the contrary, there is already a deep and vast nomological network of evidence that can be called g theory.

2: the "antiracialist" POV, as I understand you to have previously described it, is not to be found in any of the consensus statements. Gottfredson in the quote above backs the 2-competing hypotheses scheme. So does Reynolds (2000), a person whom I do not know to have ever previously written or committed to a position on R&I. So does all other presentations I've seen (with the exception of those who enumerate many environmentalist positions and one genetics position, but never an "antiracialist" position). --Rikurzhen 23:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside from these details, I don't see deletion is the appropriate response to either of your criticisms. If you believe (1) to not be the "consensus", then you surely recongize it as being the something like that. If you believe there are 3 major views, then you should argue for the inclusion a third column, rather than deleting tons of informative material. --Rikurzhen 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"A century of research" does not paraphrase into "The consensus among intelligence researchers is". A better quote would be, "According to Pioneer Fund scholar Linda Gottfredson, a "century of research" has shown IQ differences among same-race individuals represent (a) real, (b) functionally important, and (c) substantially genetic differences in general intelligence (the g factor), and mean IQ differences between the races likewise reflect (d) real and (e) functionally important differences on the same g factor.." Insofar as columns, you'd have just as much problem with "genetic-only" and "partially-culture" columns (as used by Gil-White, for example). It is simply POV pushing to present in such detail, a good argument against a bad one. --JereKrischel 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be according to the signatories of (I don't remember the name of the manifesto), but if memory serves correctly, there were about only 53 or so researcher who signed this. So, there is a consensus of 50 or so researchers. The APA is about 10,000 strong, and that is not counting biologists, anthropologists and all other stripes of scientists taking an interest in the question. So yes, Linda Gottfredson and about 50 researchers (one-third of which are PF fundees) claim this is a consensus, but this consensus represents at best, what - 0.2% of American psychologists. Maybe if you want a statement which represents a real consensus, distilling one from the APA statement on the Bell Curve (the 1995 Neisser paper) would give it much more credibility.--Ramdrake 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

see below. The APA report comes the same conclusions. However, the APA report wasn't written by 10k authors. It's the view of the ~10 authors who wrote the report, trying to present a consensus. The received many criticisms for their treatment of the cause of the BW gap, but that's actually outside of the scope of the Gottfredson sentences, which say the cause is specifically not resolved. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

(1) Gottfredson is saying that the consensus of the available research points to these conclusions. The APA and WSJ statements agree as does the S&R survey. (2) No one thinks it's genetic only. The claim that the partly genetic view is really an all genetic view is fringe. Partly culture = partly genetic by definition. The reason it is phrased in terms of genetics is due to the history of this debate. It would take a substantial citation to demonstrate that the view of two major theories (<20% genetic versus 20-80% genetic) is wrong. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the intro patagraph to read more cautiously. Gottfredson,while saying that research strongly supports (and that's a claim, not a fact) that all five evidentiary prerequisites for the existence of the genetic hypothesis have been met, never actually comes out and say that a consensus exists. She says the body of evidence exists; she doesn't say others agree with her. Thus, to avoid an unwarranted generalization, I have reworded the intro to present the prerequisites as a well-supported claim rather than a fact, which is exactly what it is.--Ramdrake 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the 5 points and check the APA report. You'll see they are all there. Points 1-3 are listed as the consensus in the main article, etc. Points 4 is rather trivial as the IQ gap clearly makes a difference in educational outcomes. Point 5 was unchallenged circa 1995 when the APA report was written. Since then it has been suggested that it is still possible that the BW gap is on a factor that is merely highly correlated with g rather than g itself, but no suggestion that this is more likely the case. --Rikurzhen 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording of the Neisser (APA) report is dfferent, much more cautious. If you want to refe to the content of the Neisser report and paraphase from there rather than from Gottfredson's, go ahead. But presenting Gottfredson's claims, no matter how well supported, as facts backed by a general consensus is an unwarranted generalization, upon closer inspection.--Ramdrake 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

straw man pro racialist - fails OR NPOV and V

The "culture-only" interpretation is a commonly used straw-man argument made by pro-racialists, and not indicative of the actual positions of the scientific community. Typically, the argument is over the amount of genetic contribution. Pro-racialists typically assert anywhere from 50% - 80% genetic determinism, where as other scientists generally accept less than 20% genetic determinism in intelligence.

as my edit comment indicates, this kind of writing is never acceptable. if -- and so far i am highly skeptical -- there is in fact a real-world controversy over whether the debate really is between partly-genetic and culture-only POVs, then this is certainly not a neutral presentation of such a case. there are no citations (again my skepticism) to support the claim. no balance of presentation of competing views. --Rikurzhen 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

While some of the wording may be unfortunate, there is still a good part of truth in this, namely that "hereditarian" scientists will insist on a genetic contribution at least equal to environmental factors, possibly much higher. "Environmental" scientists may accept a small part of genetic contribution to the equation, say up to 20% (I'm still looking fo a cite to fix this number). I think translating the debate from "partly-genetic" vs "totally-cultural" to "hereditarian" vs "environmental" may diffuse accusations of making a strawman, as it more closely represents the typical positions of classical proponents of each camp, say typically Rushton on one side and Neisser on the other.--Ramdrake 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. Neutrality, for better or worse, mostly comes down to subtle rhetoric when you get to the fine details. Reynolds (2000) suggested the 20% number, probably becomes a heritabilty of <20% is considered negligible/small. Jensen is the iconic hereditarian -- "Jensenism" as it is sometimes called. Flynn may be the iconic environmentalist -- Flynn effect and all -- but it's harder to say that for sure. --Rikurzhen 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we can find an understanding on this. Based on your suggestions for "icons", I'll try to find proper quotes for both sides to try to give substance to those numbers. I think we can make substantial improvement in the appearance of neutrality for both sides in this article if we focus the debate on how much of a genetic contribution there is to the issue instead of pitting an absolutist view of 0% genetic contribution against a >0% genetic contribution. My understanding of the issue so far is that the debate is much closer to an "how much" question than to a "whether or not" question. In this light, the Roth & Snyderman survey results actually make perfect sense rather than being a point of contention.--Ramdrake 23:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When people are being dispassionate about it, it's a how much question (how much in any particular environmental circumstance). Obviously there are many examples of people being not dispassionate. No time to dig them up, but they're linked in the article. So it often comes down to some or none. With "some" being abhorrent to many people. Note that "environment only" was a solid 2nd place in S&R's survey. -- Even though we can be dispassionate and courteous to one another, this rarely characterizes the public side of the debate. So we're stuck describing an inflamed debate. --Rikurzhen 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that entire "comparisons" section really smacks of OR - it quite neatly falls into a point-by-point hereditarian paper discussing evidence on one side, and leaving weak arguments on the other. A comparisons section should be more along the lines of - Hereditarian: The IQ gap is primarily caused by genetics./Environmentalist: The IQ gap is primarily caused by environmental factors. A more appropriate title of the section is "Hereditarian evidence and weak environmentalist refutations." Nothing is really being "compared" at all, except for evidence on one side (well cited, and exhaustively detailed), and straw-man argument on the other side. I'm sure if we replaced it with a point-by-point, blow-by-blow recreation of Lieberman's paper, we could have the same section POV pushed in the other direction. It really doesn't belong. --JereKrischel 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, Rikurzhen, would this be acceptable to add to the "comparisons" section?

Primarily genetic	Primarily environmental
Skull sizes of different races have been compared since the 1800s (Morton, 1849), showing differential sizes which are assumed related to IQ (Rushton, 1996).	The views of Morton and Rushton have been invalidated "by a century of anthropological research" (Gossett 1965, Cravens, 1978), and themselves are inconsistent with each other (Morton putting "Caucasoids" as the group with the largest brains, and Rushton putting "Mongoloids" as the group with the largest brains).

If so, we've got an entire paper of Lieberman to go through, point by point, giving the strongest possible argument for the environmentalist point of view. --JereKrischel 08:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

In other words: I don't like it because it makes the breadth of the claims for the hereditarian view clear. Ultramarine and I did our best to present the strongest arguments avaiable for both sides. Deletion is seldom the solution to achieving NPOV. In this case, you should strength the arguments with the best available ones where possible. -- OR involves an original argument, which this material is not. WRT policy, it is not materially different than an topic point-counter-point in paragraph form, but has the benefit of keeping things organized. -- I'm reverting because deletion of huge amounts of material is not appropriate. Arguments can be made about presentation, but simple deletion is not an option. --Rikurzhen 08:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The point-by-point pro-hereditarian argument is OR, which does qualify for deletion. That being said, let's start off by adding in point-by-point from Lieberman, and see if you're okay with that. --JereKrischel 08:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

JK, it would be fine except it doesn't nearly capture enough of the hereditarian argument. For both POVs, you should present the best published arguments you know of. Also, the "primarily genetic"/"primary environment" formulation is bad. --Rikurzhen 08:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

JK, all of the material is cited. Most of it comes from the 2005 review papers. It's not OR. Maybe it's just new to you. Check the citations. --Rikurzhen 08:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think you still don't understand my essential concern. It seems you're willing to go blow-by-blow, citation by citation, but I think it's moving in the wrong direction. I'd like to ask other editors to weigh in on whether or not such a section is appropriate - it seems like we're writing a paper to be published in the next issue of some science journal, rather than presenting any sort of concise comparison. --JereKrischel 09:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Concise writing is great. One one point the material was ordered in relative importance/commonality. You'll note that the origianl top item covered IQ, brain size, and reaction time. The editors notes are notes to other editors (i.e. you), not attempts to write text for the article. I was attempting to get your attention to note that you were mulitplying a single topic into multiple rows of the table. --Rikurzhen 17:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

brain size

there are now like 5 different table entries about brain size. one is sufficient, else this defeats the purpose of having a table where each topic is summarized in a row. also note this is the explanations article, not the average differences article. --Rikurzhen 09:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we simplify it into Rushton's racialist arguments of splitting/differing environments tens of thousands of years ago creating different brain sizes, with the primarily environmental POV simply stating that Rushton's data is incorrectly aggregated, and that sufficient controls for such data have not been implemented in any studies? There seem to be a lot of entries in the "comparisons" section which are not in fact explanations, but rather citations supporting one explanation over another. --JereKrischel 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting like things into single rows is the right idea. --Rikurzhen 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

About the comparison table

I'll give you my opinion, blunt as it is: it's humongous, it's ugly to read (especially with all those *****editor's notes*****) and it falls into the same tarpit the original article used to: a tit-for-tat battle of arguments on either side, each trying to find an angle to refute the opposing side's argument. In short, it doesn't report on a debate, it is a debate in and of itself. Let's try to find the strongest arguments on each side, and not launch into ad infinitum, ad nauseum refutations. I'd start by moving the table here so we can discuss it, as it looks supremely unencyclopedic as it is on the article page. The smaller table JK has introduced, to sum up the positions, I think is fine and should stay. I don't have time to do it this morning, but I may try my hand at some editing later one today.--Ramdrake 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The editors notes were added with the hope that they would guide JK to put material into existing rows rather than creating new ones. As I tried to point out about we have something like 5 different rows discussing whether brain size differs by race -- all in slightly different permutations. There's no need to use the talk page as a base for editing. This article is unlikely to be read by more than a handful of people -- I note the rate at which typos get fixed in this and other articles. --Rikurzhen 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

about the small table

it's OR. (1) I recognize 2 of the 4 categories listed. i know of no reference to support the division of opinions in this field along racialist/nonracialist lines except as those terms are used synonmyously with the terms herediatarian/nonhereditarian. thus, combining them creates two categories that appear to be essentially depopulated. (2) i can only assume it was created by logical extrapolation from some implied definitions of these terms. thus, assuming no sources were directly consulted, it's plainly OR. --Rikurzhen 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not OR. There are clearly two axes of thought here, and they are unfairly conflated by the pro-racialist POV which wants to consider any genetic basis of intelligence as proof that racial differences have a genetic basis. There are clearly scientists (http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/IQ/NRN2004_IQ.html) who accept genetic components to intelligence, but dispute the utility of "race" (In reviewing the neurobiological bases of intelligence it is not necessary,on scientific grounds,to consider race. Most of the variance in intelligence is within racial groups not between them9,and the causes of individual differences are relatively tractable with available methods,whereas the causes of racial differences are not). It seems POV pushing to assert that any hereditarian position (that is to say, those who believe there is a genetic basis for intelligence differences) must be supportive of the racialist position. --JereKrischel 20:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That claim is fine in itself but misses the point. The article is about explanations for race differences in IQ, not overall differences in IQ. Hereditarian vs environmentalist are terms which apply at many levels, but the relevant level is race differences in intelligence. Claims of the form "it seems like POV pushing" require you to establish that there exists published opinions about there being a two-axis split on the topic of race differences. That some people who accept a genetic cause of individual differences think race differences could be environmental does not establish such a two-factor account. The vast majority of "environmentalists" about race differences are "hereditarian" about individual differences because the herediatarian account of individual differences is by far the majority view (as per the intro sentence which we have not yet resolved). Lastly, on the specific point of Thompson and Gray (2004) a neurobiologist can not be expected to have an informed opinion about the significance of human races except by relying on their evaluations of the informed opinions of others. --Rikurzhen 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, by the very same token, a psychologist (such as Rushton or Lynn) cannot be expected to have an informed opinion about the significance of human races except by relying on their evaluations of the informed opinions of others. Therefore, when an anthropologist like Lieberman says that Rushton's partition of races is wrong, it should be an extremely strong critical argument, no?--Ramdrake 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't address the main part of my point and so I think we should not get distracted, but Lieberman has one view and geneticists like Risch have another. I'm a geneticist and I happen to think Risch is more right than Lieberman. Please help by thinking about the "hereditarian" vs "racialist" claims being made by JK. --Rikurzhen 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I think you still haven't addressed the issue of your OR conflation of hereditarian with hereditarian-racialist. You cannot reasonably assert that all hereditarians are racialists, and that any evidence for a genetic component to intelligence is supportive of the racialist position. Although you only recognize two of the four categories, you do not offer any alternative that clearly shows that there are those who do not believe in the utility of race (as per the article you yourself cited [5]). If you wish to dispute the table as presented, please present us with an alternative that clearly demarcates the position that while intelligence may have a strong genetic component, race is not a viable proxy for genetics. --JereKrischel 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No no no. It falls on you to provide citations to support your two axis model. You appear to be misunderstanding Thompson -- he's not making a skeptical claim about race but rather commenting on the ease with which the cause of race differences can be discovered, and saying that it's possible to investigate individual differences w/o bring up race. However, this is a distraction from the main point. Here's the point: the term hereditarian is an answer to two different questions. The question of interest is race difference. Another question is individual differences. Flynn, afaik, recognizes that individual differneces are substantially heritable. He believes that race differences are not. I don't know where you are getting a defintion for "racialist". I suspect you mean people believe that racial labels are informative about biogeography or such. In that case, Flynn may be a racialist also -- not sure about that. --Rikurzhen 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've provided citations, including the citation you provided yourself showing scientists who dispute the utility of race as a categorization, but see a high degree of genetic component to intelligence. You continue to conflate anyone who has a hereditarian position with one who supports or believes in the utility of race. You are conflating two different questions - "Is intelligence genetically determined?" and "Are intelligence differences between groups genetically determined?". A non-racialist hereditarian may agree with the first question, but not with the second. To list those hereditarian arguments as support for explaining race differences in IQ is clearly invalid. --JereKrischel 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Reread my entry, which i've been updating. i'll give you some time to come to grips with this problem and find a citation for you two-axis model and/or remove it. --Rikurzhen 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, please explain how you are going to represent the hereditarian/non-racialist POV, and I'll be more than happy to entertain whatever breakdown you'd like to present. If there is a better way to describe the various explanations, without improperly conflating the questions of "Is intelligence genetically determined?" and "Are intelligence differences between groups genetically determined?", I'm more than glad to hear of it. --JereKrischel 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

the experts who write about this subject understand and never conflate those two questions. the gottfredson paraphrase which is currently under dispute in the first sentence of the article makes this point clear. the problem with the small table is that it introduces the notion of a two-factor (four category) breakdown of opinion where that is not appropriate (because AFAIK, it is an original research claim). --Rikurzhen 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is categorically untrue, Rikurzhen. A primary critique of the work of Rushton by Lieberman is such unwarranted conflations of data. --JereKrischel 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation for your reference, Rikurzhen- [6] Further analysis by Rosenberg et al. (2003) demonstrated that the categories proposed as races are not that informative. Depending on the markers used, the component of variance between continents could be as low as 2.8%, whereas the component within continents was 2.5%; the remaining 95% of genetic variation was within local populations. From the hereditarian perspective, why then would IQ not be expected to vary between, say, Sicilians and Swedes as much as between Europeans and Africans?

These new data do not alter the prior conclusion: Historically determined groups of various sizes can be identified, but there is no reason to assume that these categories are coterminous with any complex trait of interest to biologists. This occurs because genetic variation is overwhelmingly discordant among population groups (i.e., different variants are assorted randomly among different groups; AAA, 1998). For example, sub-Saharan Africa is home to both the tallest (Maasai) and the shortest (pygmies) people, and dark skin is found in all equatorial populations, not just in the “Black race” as defined in the United States. --JereKrischel 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

watch publication dates

one problem that this article tends to run into is changes in opinion. we must watch publication dates. if a paper was published in the 90s, there's a risk that the author has since changed his/her mind. for example, here's a paper by Jensen challenging Rushton about brain sizes from 1993: [7]. (assuming I understand this paper) it would anachronistic to cite Jensen as being opposed to Rushton as he appears to have changed his mind since this time. --Rikurzhen 18:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

making a mess

jk, you're duplicating entries again. read the table in full before adding new material. --Rikurzhen 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

also, if you can't write something cited and informative for the hereditarian side, don't write anything at all. perhaps this will keep down duplication as most points can be found somewhere in the table. --Rikurzhen 22:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're presenting an unbalanced, OR presentation of the arguments between the racialist-hereditarian POV and the primarily-environmental POV. You are conflating any evidence of genetic linkage to intelligence as support for the racialist-hereditarian POV, and deliberately avoiding the primary critiques of the racialist-hereditarian POV (dubious data, and the futility of race as a proxy for all or most of the genes which control intelligence). --JereKrischel 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"dubious data, and the futility of race as a proxy for all or most of the genes which control intelligence" -- take care to be precise and citation based in your thinking and writing. the "dubious data" claim is aimed at Rushton's life history matrix, not at for example IQ differences between U.S. black and whites, which has been studied extensively. the "race as a proxy for all or most of the genes which control intelligence" is an unusual way to describe the criticism of race, which is usually made from a cline/cluster POV. how makes this kind of claim as you have stated it? --Rikurzhen 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)