Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 46

NOTE: 3 days worth of talk that is 79 kb long. Perhaps many of the suggestions here are valuable - but no one followed any of them up ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Lahn

A reference should be made of the Science rebuttal to Lahn in Science 22 December 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5807, p. 1872. BRUCE LAHN PROFILE: Links Between Brain Genes, Evolution, and Cognition Challenged Michael Balter for NPOV. Rushton also addressed it in: Rushton JP, Vernon PA, Bons TA. No evidence that polymorphisms of brain regulator genes Microcephalin and ASPM are associated with general mental ability, head circumference or altruism. Biol Lett. 2007 Jan 23; I noted the debate is framed as an American issue but is that neccessarily true: Psychol Rep. 2006 Aug;99(1):191-6. Association of race and color with mean IQ across nations.Templer DI, Arikawa H. I came across this article which I think exemplifies the perspective issue in this kind of research:Cooper RS. Race and IQ: Molecular genetics as deus ex machina. Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):71-6. PMID: 15641923 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. This is an excellent article by the way! Kudos to all the authors! It is well referenced and generally balanced. It maybe too much detail for an encyclopedia. I noted in the Talk that original research was an issue and I hope that has been eliminated as an issue. GetAgrippa 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see the move to reorganize the article in Talk. A good idea considering it is really an offshoot of Intelligence. I think the article could easily turn into a quagmire of peer reviewed publications of differing opinion that support or refute any given contention. I think the move above to frame the issues and problems inherent is a good move.GetAgrippa 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to explain why there is a difference in IQ and race maybe an aside. It reminds me of research on age related effects on cognitive and spatial function-by your thirties there are significant effects, but is it significant. If you look at a hundred years of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, economics and literature and the age of their significant work you see it is 31-40 years of age-many were productive till their eighties. The question I have is the difference in IQ and race significant and is there another parameter of productivity or success that would be an objective measure to determine that any difference means anything in the real world. As I recollect IQ test correlate well with verbal abilities but also are a measure of productivity. GetAgrippa 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting article on differences of organ sizes (including brain) in blacks and whites and its relationship to metabolism. : Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 May;83(5):1062-7.Small organs with a high metabolic rate explain lower resting energy expenditure in African American than in white adults.Gallagher D, Albu J, He Q, Heshka S, Boxt L, Krasnow N, Elia M. The relationship of intelligence to brain size may have another dimension of differences in metabolism. GetAgrippa 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, it seems to me that there is no way to draw on this literature in this context without violating WP:NOR. Are there secondary sources that have made connections between these findings and specific debates on race and intelligence? If so, can you single those out? otherwise, I would suggest that some of the articles may be appropriate to incorporate into the article on race, others into the article on intelligence, but here we have to be careful about NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am talking out loud. I am not familiar with this literature so I am exploring. It is OR because I am trying to make heads or tails of the literature. I find the kinds of questions being asked of interest. I can appreciate understanding differences in races for health and medical interest, but this is a dimension I see driven by bias. I am glad to see a number of authors suggesting a NPOV. GetAgrippa 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving ahead

Folks, I just archived a lot of material - because this talk page had become ten times longer than it should be.

Right now, the article is protected. I didn't protect it, but given the HUGE amount of talk going on I think it makes sense to pinpoint and resolve some key conflicts before moving on. The alternative is to keep talking in circles. I personally believe that there is now much more clarity about the differences between JK and WRN. I have two procedural suggestions right now; I hope everyone understands that my only intention is to be constructive in as practical a way as possible. First, I suggest that people stop adding to earlier threads (i.e. the above sections of the talk page), at least for now. Instead, I suggest that we sum up the central points of contention, which are currently addressed in different ways in different sections above, and sum them up and discuss them here. Second, I suggest that the principal contributors to this discussion be limited to JK and WRN. I say this because it is my sense that they represent the most active contributors involved in the conflict and if these two can resolve at least part of the conflict, whatever they come up with will likely be supported my most others and we can all move on. I do not mean to denigrate the value of other people's comments, some of which have been very constructive. And if people see a solution to any of the points of conflict between JK and WRN they should by all means propose it. But I think it is critical that we assiduously refrain from using this page just to express our opinion or to say we agree or disagree with JK or WRN unless the comment clearly proposes a way to satisfy both JK and WRN as a real imporvement to the article in its current state. Otherwise, please refrain from comment.

Here is one of WRN's most recent comments, and it is in response to something JK wrote, so I propose it as a point of departure. Alternatively, I would invite JK and WRN to sum up as consisely as possible what they think are the issues in contention that must be resolved first, and use that as a point of departure.

SLR, i missed when this question was asked, but I think this table represents an original and inaccurate presentation of views about the cause of group differences. On one hand, literature divided along the race (columns) axis is mostly not about intelligence and doesn't claim to be about it. On the other hand, to the extent that literature examining the race question does does claim to have implications for the cause of group differences in intelligence, it does not claim to do so in an orthogonal manner -- rather there is a correspondence between no-race and environment as the one POV and race and genetics as the other POV .... This may not have been clear -- I don't think the question about group differences organizes the article. It just happens to be the issue that is most hotly debated. It's the issue where there's the least agreement and the most contention.

Before I shut up, I have two comments. First, I do not agree with WRN that IF "group differences ... just happens to be the issue that is most hotly debated" THEN this question should not organize the article. It seems to me that our NPOV policy demands that the most hotly debated issues be fully represented in an article. I would agree with WRN only insofar as the fact that debates about the nature of the "groups" being compared should not be the only organizing principle of the article. The title of the article is "race" and "intelligence" and it just seems common sense that before discussing the relationship between race and intelligence, the article must discuss "race" and "intelligence," respectively, in a way that is proportionate and relevant. Second, WRN has specific criticisms about how JK proposes to do this. I think JK needs to satisfy WRN's objections in a reasonable way if we are to move on - or, perhaps, WRN, can suggest alternative ways to accomplish this in a way that would satisfy JK, or perhaps others can suggest a way that would satisfy both WRN and JK.

As a first step in this direction, I propose that literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominantly in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence. Can JK and WRN agree at least on this principle? If so, we can then build on it, step by step. As to WRN's criticism of the orthoganality, I have no ideas about this.

At this point I propose to all participants that we wait for both JK and WRN to respond to what I have written, and see if they can at least agree to a process for moving ahead, before others chime in. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, on this one, I will side with Slrubenstein that the best chance we have of resolving this conflict is to resolve all issues one at a time. Why start with Rik and JK? Maybe they've been at it non-stop the longest, maybe they have more complex arguments, maybe it's just dumb luck. However we may feel about this one, I think SLR's plan is the right one. Let's do our very best to stop all asides and let JK and Rik explore their issues with the article - I don't know if they've been stated or restated enough or if they need to be restated once more. If we have to intervene, let it be about those issues and those issues only, please. Our turns will come next. And I agree that if we are to comment, it would be to further try to help resolve these issues, so comments like "I agree with Rik" or "I agree with JK" aren't helpful now as we're not having a straw poll, at least not yet. I think comments that will be helpful are comments which will help develop the issues further and see where some sort of agreement can be reached, and what would be needed to come to an agreement on issues where we don't agree. Maybe it's time for JK and Rik to think along the lines of "if I could only change one thing to the article to make it become as acceptable as possible, what would it be?" Maybe it would help order priorities and see which issues are important and which are really side issues, or daughter issues of the important one(s). Now, I'd like everyone to please make an effort to direct their attention at JK's and Rik's issues with the articles. Our turn to explain our issues will be right next.--Ramdrake 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Said. I'll keep my comments to a minimum and on topic till this is resolved. futurebird 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully...

I can not refrain from comment. I honestly can't say that I trust any user here to make all of these important decisions. But, I do trust the decision of all of the users here, together. What happened to consensus? This isn't an oligarchy. Our strength here is our plurality and diversity. There are not just two sides to this debate, there are twenty or more. The more I think about it, the less I like it. Everyone should be involved. It will be slower, but it will also lead to a better result. I know you're trying to streamline the process, but you're cutting out the work, and the ideas and the insight of a lot of people, even though there are others here, who may not have said as much, but who have been working on this article and following the debate the entire time. I will not stay out of it. I will outline my major concerns shortly. I suggest that all other users do the same. futurebird 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, everyone has been involved. And we have come to an almost unacceptable impass: first talk pages that are over 300 kb wrong - I assure you this is a symptom of a process that is not working - and an important article that is protected. Let's please upt our own egos aside and be practical: most of the talk has been written by JK and WRN. They have long been at loggerheads. If they can reach agreement on certain points, we can move forward and go back to "everyone" participating. But if we keep the process as it was, this article will just stay protected, no resolution to these conflicts will be found, and the talk page will just keep getting archived. My proposal above is just for now. Futurebird, I am sure that you can refrain from commenting for two or three days, is this so injurious to you? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think we have been making progress through this process--I don't see an unacceptable impass, I see people proposing changes and finally asking the right questions about this article. The exact nature of the conflict has become more clear to me than ever through these discussions. I think they have been long, yes, but it's not just a tit-for-tat argument. Some of the time people seem to be really listening to each other and we are adjusting.

Please, have some faith in the process. What we really need are more suggestions and ideas. More outlines. More input. Not just from me but from "fresh eyes" --

If you just want WD and RK to 'work something out' why should it be on 'this talk page? I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. I feel as if I'm being told to shut up and go away just at the point that we're starting to get someplace for once. Just be patient, I think that we can reach a consensus. futurebird 13:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why this talk page? Look at the most recent archive. A little more than a month of discussion and it is over 170 kb, which is almost six times longer than a talk page should be. And most of the discussion is by JK and WRN. That means that there is some impasse between them, and it also means that they way we were going about talking about it was not bringing us any closer to resolving the impasse. I think there are some fundamental conflicts about how to move forward on this page and it is evident simply by looking at the last two archived talk pages that JK and WRN are the most informed and vocal participants in this conflict. It only make sense to try to mediate the conflicts between them to a mutually satisfactory resolution before moving on with other things. I ask you to have faith in the process. Wikipedia has many processes, and the typical process of a talk page with many people participating is only one of Wikipedia's process. It is the process that has dominated this page for years, and if printed out you would see hundreds if not thousands of talk pages on race is real/race isn't none of which had any, any impact at all on the article. What is wrong with suggesting, just for the next few days or week, a different process, one aimed a mediating a conflict? Why can't you have faith in trying something a little different, just for a few days?Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't do that because I don't trust anyone here enough to simply leave this alone. Wikipedia has scared me. I keep uncovering more and more scientific racism creeping in to articles all over the site. (take a look at Latitude, for example, it's even in there!) I don't see enough voices like my own here, and I worry that, if I go, I will return in a few days to find a totally unacceptable "compromise" that still lacks historical context. At that point, I will be cooly brushed off, told that "we've reached a decision without you, thank you very much, please move along." and, in the end, absolutely nothing will change. If there were a greater plurality of voices I would not feel the need to say anything-- But, I think I am in the minority here when it comes to making the case for historical context, making the case for clear distinctions between theories of heritable intelligence and theories of heritable racial intelligence. I hope you can understand that. futurebird 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with futurebird. I cannot assume the responsibility of being the archtype of anti-WRIK. That being said, I greatly respect SLR's focus on addressing root issues, and am embarrassed to have been so caught up in minor points of debate that I had lost focus on the root causes of my disagreements with WRIK. I think we've found the root cause - that WRIK has the perspective of a geneticist, and wishes to frame the issue in terms he understands professionally, and is concerned about the pollution of the article with numerous references to the definition of "race" which would complicate his view. As a layman, I find this approach misleading and unfair, especially given the host of criticism regarding the point throughout the literature. To address the root concerns of WRIK (complications in the article), I suggest that he provide a framework for making clear what studies use what definition of "race", and whether that definition is a consistent one. I think this is a viable compromise, but I do understand that WRIK may not be amenable to it - so far, it seems that no compromise suggestions have been forthcoming from him at all. --JereKrischel 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are responsible. Not solely responsible by any means, and I say this not as a complaint or as a criticism. But you have consistently argued against WRN and you have produced a large portion of talk on this page. That makes you responsible. All I want is a process that will move us forward. I do NOT think that the funal form the article takes or even the final form any resolution to these basic conflicts takes will come exclusively from you and WRN. But it seems so obvious to me that unless you and WRN focus on a few key issues and reach resolution, we will be back at square one: hundreds of KBs of talk produced each montht that only get archived, and an article still protected, unchanging. Talk pages are meant to imporve articles, and I am only trying to be honest when I say that this talk page contains a good deal of information that could perhaps improve the article but the process of improving the article has broken down. I am just trying to propose a practical solution to the current problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, SLR, up until two and a half months ago, I was probably just as responsible as JK and WRN for the length of these debates. Then, for various reasons, I needed to take a break for awhile. However, I'll vouch for the fact that other pages where the talk is just as bulky and advances th article very little abound in Wikipedia. The only thing exceptional about this is the length (time-wise) of this debate. Usually, some editors get fed up or bored, and stop pressing the issue. The ones with the most patience win, which is sometimes a good thing, sometimes not. But I think that by limiting this mediation to only two protagonists, we are missing a vital point. I see, from the writings of several editors, that a real consensus seems to have emerged, which isn't unanimous (a minority of editors seem to agree to disagree). By pitting possibly the two most opposite positions and saying "get to a compromise", maybe we are pushing this article somewhere else than where consensus would lead it, which I don't think is the spirit of Wikipedia. Maybe an alternate solution would be to take stock of the opinions of the emerging consensus and help those editors in the minority accept that changes are being made to improve the article, even though they may disagree with many of them. No one owns wikipedia articles; they go wherever the consensus is, and if consensus changes, articles change too. That is the nature of the Wikipedia beast.

I've refrained from posting any comment since you asked a day or so ago, but honestly I've found myself having opinions and positions which I didn't write down on the talk page, but found minutes or hours later someone else just said exactly what I was thinking. Thus, all things considered, out of respect, I will shut up again for now, but I urge you to reconsider today your request to leave JK and WRN do all the talking for now, and just reopen the floor to all editors. Only then will real consensus be visible, even if this consensus may never be able to achieve unanimity.--Ramdrake 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that any real progress will be made on the article unless we deal with specific, major, points of contention one at a time. And it will be easier to do this if we start by looking at major conflicts between specific editors. This is merely a method to move forward. I feel pretty confident that if we do not do this, people will continue to use this page mostly to express there own views or pursue their own love of debate, and amidst all the noise many valid criticisms and constructive suggestions will be raised and lost to the archive as people spin off on endless tangents or just keep repeating themselves. I personally would rather see the article improve, and am willing to try to make systematic progress even if that involves some self-discipline. However, others may not feel that way. Fine by me. I will just keep archiving - pages should not get over 30 kb. You'd think well-intentioned and intelligent people could resolve specific conflicts with just that amount of talk. Unless they just prefer adding to the talk archives, rather than improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would be very helpful to see people comment on the sections below written by JK and I. The problem with each section is a lack of specific details and recommendations. I believe in part that JK and I are talking past one another because of this. I also believe we have departed from the 3 specific issues JK listed as his complaints at the top of the current talk page (save perhaps #3) and which I agreed needed a solution. If that means that #1 and #2 are resolved, maybe that's progress. Here's my top concern about what JK has said -- it suggests an attempt to resolve a conflict in the literature on our own -- to reply or answer or respond or provide information in response to critics of race and intelligence research when we present results about ti. As suggested by JK, I don't see how this isn't WP:SYNT or some related variant of OR. (Note also his suggestion that any research that doesn't give a definition of race that matches his criteria should be excluded -- I assume this is not a well thought out comment -- but it fits with the overall problem.) I believe the most important point I made and that I would like others to consider is when I say that the article should be narrowly tailored, or else it will inevitably violate policy. I know this would could for boring reading, and mostly likely not give sufficient-to-you attention to what you may think is the most crucial criticism of the entire topic (which you may want to emphasize by building it into the structure of the article somehow), but focusing on what people have said and only discussing thing that they say are related to one another a the same time (and making each section of the article likewise focus on topics) is the only way I know to keep the article neutral, sympathetic to what it is describing, and free of the original intellectual input (OR) of its editors. --WD RIK NEW 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, a note: "my outline" is the current article outline. This is meant in a good faith, but I'm not sure that everyone (even me) is fully familiar with the actual content of the article. Many of the suggestions below actually exist in the article or the subarticles. --WD RIK NEW 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder, some of the actual controversies which lead to this situation which I objected to were this edit: definitely inappropriate straw man, deletion certainly necessary and this edit: none of the papers cited have a graphic with four curves. synthesis of table information in papers into novel graph clearly OR. --WD RIK NEW 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical and global perspective: Who? When? Where? and Why?

My major concern is to set questions of race and intelligence in historical and in global perspective. Early research in to race and intelligence occurred in Europe and the Americas. Much of it was blatantly racist, motivated by the the desire to justify slavery, colonialism, and segregation. Some modern research has been criticized by people, such as Steven Jay Gould, for continuing to do the same thing. Likewise, some modern researchers have been demonized just for asking controversial questions. The involvement of organizations like the Pioneer Fund has not helped matters, since it has caused many people to question the motives of the fund's contemporary grant recipients who do research in this area.

Can we ask: if 'race science' is science?

We must not write a long scientific journal article, because race and intelligence is not a purely scientific topic. It is also a social and a historical topic. This article should not attempt to prove or disprove one (or more than one) scientific hypothesis on race and intelligence, it should, rather, clearly explain what those hypothesis are, as well has the history of their development, naming the major researchers, and academics who have proposed them. It should give a clear overview of the points of disagreement. To this end, I think that the chart proposed by JK above, separates out most of the finer points of dispute, since it shows what a huge question the utility of "race" is for science. The balance we are seeking in this article involves acknowledging that the "sciencetificness" of even having a debate over these questions is also a major point of contention. And doing this without belittling that perspective as "unscientific."futurebird 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The utility of race does have appliation in the human genome, metabolism, physiology, etc. as far as health and medicine, but comparisons are linked to disease and health risks. Comparing IQ or best color vision or some other trait has no implicit value, but you are right about the social dimension where some people give it value. GetAgrippa 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

organizing principle

if "organizing principle" = "thing you talk about in the article" then I agree and would suggest that already describes the state of the article. the article must discuss "race" and "intelligence," respectively, in a way that is proportionate and relevant. -- Here's the salient part of the current article outline. I think we do exactly that, and take the time in sect. 1 to highlight the debate about causes.

• 1 Background information
  • 1.1 Race
  • 1.2 Intelligence testing
  • 1.3 The contemporary debate: results and interpretations
  • 1.4 History
• 2 Average gaps among races
• 3 Explanations
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Environmental explanations
  • 3.3 Genetic explanations
  • 3.4 Expert opinion
• 4 Significance of group IQ differences
• 5 Public debate and policy implications

so, if there's a dispute about this very specific item, it must be something more subtle that i'm missing. [maybe slow to get to other threads started above.] --WD RIK NEW 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The particular problems I have are the Average gaps among races, since it conflates a number of definitions of "race" (U.S. Black-White gap as self-identified ethnicity, rather than "race"), Explanations, because it does not address the fundamental issue of whether or not "race" is a viable proxy for genetics before trying to find a genetic explanation, nor does it address the fundamental issue of heritability and its problematic and improper use for between group comparisons. Also, throughout the entire set of sections, there is a vast imbalance of citation and argument, without proper context of what definition of "race", or even what definition of "intelligence" they use. I also have a problem with "results and interpretations", because of the POV assertion that the debate has been framed properly into "results and interpretations"...there is also a great deal of controversy on what questions should be asked. --JereKrischel 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

JK, I'd like to ask two things of you one, could you restate this as a list of ordered issues, specifically a bullet-form with the most important issues first and the least important ones last? Second, you state you have a problem with the conflation of various definitions of "race" and not properly addressing the issue of whether or not "race" is a viable proxy for genetics. May I ask you to explain the consequences you see for the article and how you think they could be resolved simply, if at all possible?--Ramdrake 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my ordered list, most important first:

• Explanations is POV pushing because it does not address the fundamental issues of definitions of "race", nor the inapplicability of heritability between groups;
• Throughout all sections, there is a vast imbalance of citation and argument, without proper context of what definition of "race" or "intelligence is being used (particularly with images)
• Average gaps among races, since it conflates several definitions of "race", as well as multiple proxies for "intelligence"
• "results and interpretations", because it ignores the fact that the proper questions to ask are part of the controversy.

I think the only way to solve the issue of conflations of definitions of race is to be specific about which definitions are being used, or if no standard definition is being used. For example, citing Rushton or Lynn, one must clearly state that they do not use standard definitions of race in their aggregation of evidence. Citing other studies which are specific to a single study, as opposed to meta-analyses of multiple studies, we can state their specific definition (U.S. self-identified Black/White, or 1-drop rule Black (such as some german studies of mixed race "black" children of U.S. black servicemen)).

Insofar as addressing the issue of "race" being a viable proxy for genetics, I think that a large section must be devoted to the issue, since it is a primary criticism of racialist hypotheses and the ordering of hierarchies. Similarly, when discussing genetic explanations, it must be very clear when a study is NOT using a genetic definition of "race" (AFAIK, there have been no intelligence studies based on a genetic definition of "race"). Hope that answers your questions! --JereKrischel 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

These are non-issues. (1) fundamental issues of definitions of "race" play little role in the research literature about the cause of group differences. to the extent that they do, they are offered as a reason to reject genetic explanations in favor of environmental ones. arguments about the inapplicability of heritability between groups are detailed in the section and thus this is moot. (2) without proper context of what definition of "race" or "intelligence is being used (particularly with images) - the definitions of race and the meaning of intelligence are not variables in dispute in the sense that you are implying. the arguments against race and against intelligence do not usually take the form you are suggesting. race is said to be without biological meaning, but it is not commonly suggested that racial labels are so unreliable that they are meaningless as social constructs. the meanings of race and intelligence as they are commonly used in the literature are spelled out in the first sections of the article. i know of no researchers who have gone through the intelligence literature and cataloged incongruities in the racial labels used. the suggestion that such a cataloging is a necessary part of the presentation of this literature, essentially to emphasize what the original authors do not, is not permissible or even prefereable. (3) since it conflates several definitions of "race", as well as multiple proxies for "intelligence" - this follows from 2. the fact that multiple measures of intelligence have been used (IQ tests, achievement tests, reaction time tests, brain size measures) is a feature, not a bug of the research. criticisms of IQ are that it doesn't capture the full meaning of intelligence, or that it has limited practical validity. JKs criticisms appears to be a novel interpretation. (4) because it ignores the fact that the proper questions to ask are part of the controversy. who are we to say what the "proper" questions to ask are. we are reporters, we do not take sides. there's a section of the article titled "utility" where the debate about the appropriateness of asking the questions asked in the literature is described. (*) 1-drop rule Black (such as some german studies of mixed race "black" children of U.S. black servicemen) -- this example unintentionally demonstrates that JK is operating outside the bounds of the reporter-only role that WP editors are to serve, and is instead taking what he believes to be an important point and applying it on his own as a critic of the literature. This particular study, lauded as evidence against a genetic contribution to BW IQ diffs, involves the children of Allied service men and German women born c.a. WWII, where some fathers were obviously of some degree African ancestry where others were predominately of European ancestry. No significant IQ difference was observed between the two sets of children (mixed race and white). JK objects to the language of Black and White, and yet I have to doubt that he's read the original study or read anyone actually criticize it on such grounds. Ironically, the study of interracial children, especially in the context of transracial adoption, is a major data point offered in support of the partly-genetic hypothesis. --WD RIK NEW 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

a primary criticism of racialist hypotheses and the ordering of hierarchies -- a primary criticism of Rushton offered by Lieberman WRT brain size and Rushton's life-history traits matrix, but a single study which does not claim to offer a balanced presentation of arguments, but rather to advance the authors' own POV, does not constitute evidence of the commonality of a criticism or the breadth of topics to which you describe it appyling. the big 3 reviews could offer such evidence, but fail to emphasize arguments about the nature of race. it must be very clear when a study is NOT using a genetic definition of "race" -- who says this? Risch et al (2002) and others have offered explanations for why this kind of thinking if faulty in a biomedical context -- because the social and genetic factors underlying race are nearly completely concordant, any study which seeks to look at a genetic definition of "race" will simply recapitulate the existing race categories, and thus may errantly conclude that phenotypic differences they observe are due to genetics when they could actually be caused by social-environmental factors. AFAIK, there have been no intelligence studies based on a genetic definition of "race" -- there have been studies which makes estimates of individual ancestry (IA) and look to correlate these with IQ. none have used the techniques of DNA genotyping to reliably measure IA, but skin color has been used in dozens of studies as an estimate of IA. --WD RIK NEW 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My response is unfortunately long winded. The one sentence summary: these are criticisms of the research itself, and thus it is beyond our role to try to address these criticisms in the way we describe the research -- doing so is going well beyond summarizing, it's OR. --WD RIK NEW 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you've decided to ask the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" Criticisms of the research itself are notable and deserve significant representation. We cannot simply ignore the context or controversy. This article is not simply a science article, it touches on a plethora of social issues, prejudices, and IMHO misconceptions. We cannot simply limit the scope of our writing to POV research. --JereKrischel 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jere, do you think that WRN's proposed outline needs to be junked and if so do you have an alternative? Or, given you objections, do you think his outline is servicable but just needs improvement? If so, how would you improve it.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose to JK that WRN's outline can be a starting point with specific improvments: first, expand section 2 so that it has subsections on "gaps" between differently defined groups i.e. disagfregate the different notions of race being used. Second, with all due respect Jere I think your claim that Explanations does not address the fundamental issue of whether or not race is appropriate is unhelpful and will just keep us bogged down. WRN would respond, rightfully I think, that large discussions of criticisms of race are not appropriate to this article. And Jere, it seems to me that your objection has been addressed in the literature in a way that should be incorporated in the "explanation" section. My knowledge of the lit. criticizing race and intelligence is that it doesn't just rehash arguments that race is socially constructed. My sense is that it tries to explain why it appears that race is relevant by looking at the research design and assumptions made in the statistics. This is, indeed, an explanation for the gap between IQ scores between races, but the explanation is that the research design assumed its conclusions. JK, with all due respect I am trying to be constructive. Simply to say that "Well, the problem with explanations is that it assumes that race is real" is niether a constructive nor an accurate position. People who reject the biological relaity of race do have explanations, and what we should try to do is make sure those ecplanations are included (and not just keep arguing "race is real" "no it isn't" - that just is not getting us anywhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that /Proposal 1 is a good place to start, based mostly on the APA report on the subject. I think WRN's outline could be serviceable, but would definitely require specific improvements. Insofar as "race isn't real", I think that a great deal of the literature does rehash arguments that race is socially constructed - I can find you a host of references if you wish, but if you were to take my word, I think you can see why WRN and I are at loggerheads. Addressing the "validity of race" issue makes the dialog complicated.

I would suggest as an alternative compromise that if the "race" issue is to be glossed over, we should use that same gloss on the detailed, point-by-point arguments being made to support the pro-racialist POV. That is to say, if we could reduce the sheer depth of argument and counter argument of "genetic" versus "environmental", and simply reduce those sections to let's say, three examples, pro and con, of each, I think perhaps I wouldn't have so much objection. As it stands now, I feel that providing an exhaustive account of the genetic/environmental debate, without giving some equal measure to the "is race valid" debate, distorts the argument and misleads the reader. --JereKrischel 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means presenting each significant side without taking sides, not compromising to an intermediate positions between opposing views. If there is a criticism of some position, you describe the criticism (along with the position being criticized) -- you don't act on the criticism. --WD RIK NEW 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asserting here. I would say that to present each significant side, we should also have to address balance issues - the mere existence of a supporting study, or criticism of that study, or counter-criticism, or counter-counter-criticism, does not seem to indicate to me a need for inclusion. We should be able to find balance here. --JereKrischel 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rik, I have one specific question for you relating to the way the article is organized now: it makes two very controversial assumptions at the very start. If one is to reject any part of those assumptions, do you think the consequences for the debate are properly explained in the article?--Ramdrake 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that has been answered in the literature. It's been asked by Sternberg et al 2005, but they don't seem to spell out any direct conclusions (other than to be skeptical of everything and) other than to separately support an environmental explanation. Until Ultramarine recently destroyed the content, the article said this:

It is also common to argue that both "race" and "intelligence" are arbitrary social constructions. Sternberg and colleagues question the basis of race and intelligence research Sternberg 2005:

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists working on intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends.

the final argument (studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends) is of course well described as the "utility" question, citing Sternberg. --WD RIK NEW 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As per my talk above, I think there is a difficulty when the proportion of detailed references being used is overwhelmingly an attempt to promote the pro-racialist POV. We should probably prune the article to sample just a few pro/con arguments for the various POVs, instead of going into exhaustive detail in the direction of one POV. --JereKrischel 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV demands that we present each side in the detail commensurate to its representation in the literature. The sub-articles are the proper place for detailed examination of what's been published. Rather than being supported by NPOV, your suggestion is directly contradicted by it. I hope others will find time to comment on this because it is one of the three topics listed by JK as needed to be discussed. --WD RIK NEW 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your metric for how representative something is in the literature is not congruent with mine. Rushton, who is by all means a prolific writer, does not force us to detail all of his statements, studies and positions simply because he has written more articles. There are very clear statements by the APA and other groups that there simply is no evidence for the genetic hypothesis. MacKenzie details the matter quite clearly in his description of the "Hereditarian fallacy". The note that others have made here that racialism is pseudo-science is quite a valid one in many ways, and limiting one's view to racialist literature, or falsely claiming support for the racialist position by citing literature that does not support the claims of a racial hierarchy (for example, citations of Cavalli-Sforza), is quite POV pushing. --JereKrischel 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(WD, I'm only jumping in because you asked for input.)

NPOV demands that we present each side in the detail commensurate to its representation in the literature.

What if there is "little literature" because the topic isn't considered fit for study? I'm thinking about things like aliens, for example. This is like saying that a lot of 'science articles' say aliens exist in area 51 and because few 'science articles' bother to say they don't exist we ought to then have an article in the wikipedia that pushes the POV that aliens exist in area 51. The dismissive tone of the mainstream literature speaks for itself.

Rather than being supported by NPOV, your suggestion is directly contradicted by it.

How so? I don't follow your argument here. futurebird 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you didn't mean to equate the views expressed in this article with pseudoscience. NPOV has guidelines to deal with pseudoscience and other problems of public/expert disagreement. NPOV argues for a proportional representation between the literature and the content of articles, with majority and minority views being represented. Removing content that summarizes the literature is not a a way to achieve NPOV, at least based on my reading of Arbcom decisions. --WD RIK NEW 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think many of the views expressed in this article are pseudoscience. Pruning content that excessively details one POV is appropriate. --JereKrischel 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rik, I believe the third position JK is referring to is something like given the controversy surrounding a valid scientific definition of "race", this pre-empts the question of "what causes the racial differences in intelligence" to start with. I believe he means (or can be correctly interpreted as meaning) that the third option isn't a question: it's just a constatation that the question isn't valid. JK, please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this. Rik, I believe you acknowledge the existence of this position, but only as questioning the utility of race, or of race research. I believe JK sees it as a much, much more fundamental issue, that pre-empts the entire question from being asked. Could this be part of what's at the core of the issue? And if so, do you see a way to resolve this difference of world-views?--Ramdrake 12:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I think we need to acknowledge two debates, both contentious, that ought not be conflated: (1) race, defined a given way, does or does not have a bearing on intelligence, and (2) race has a bearing on intelligence, but we debate what we mean by race.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try again, the way I read this both statements seem to say the same thing to me.

• race, defined a given way, does or does not have a bearing on intelligence

(which given way?)

• race has a bearing on intelligence, but we debate what we mean by race

which to me comes down to race, depending on which way you define it.

Could you please re-explain?--Ramdrake 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

race and its malcontents

various suggestions, notably a long section by JK above, need to be addressed.

first, when a paper makes a criticism, our duty is to describe that criticism, not to act on it or to try to address it ourselves. important example -- JK claims that published criticisms of race research claim that the definitions of race used are not clear or that they vary from study to study. more broadly, you might say (as the article currently does) that criticisms claim that "race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device, and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless". However, making this claim in the abstract doesn't mean that we must then note the definition of race used in every subsequent study we describe. The reason is that the subsequent studies we describe do not make the point of having a particular definition of race that they distinguish from other definitions. We can only describe actual debates, not synthesized ones. We can't try to answer questions that are posed by not answered in the literature.

second and related, unless it is demonstrated otherwise by the kind of direct citation we need to not violate NOR, "race doesn't exist" (or similar) isn't a significant alternative answer to the various questions that we describe answers to in this article. based on everything i've read, it isn't an answer to the question of what causes group differences in intelligence of particular note outside of it being a motivation for answering that environment is the cause. This gets to the point raised by SLR: As a first step in this direction, I propose that literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominantly in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence.

third, critics of race have counter critics, and the actual outcome of these debate is clearly in flux/not settled. even if you disagreed with my first two points, this point remains. we are obliged to not take sides in that debate. the only way to do this is to have each topic discussed in this article be as narrowly tailored as possible. if the literature being discussed doesn't make note of definitions of race being used, then a narrow tailoring suggests that we do not either. it's at this point that SLR's suggested (quote above) becomes critical.

i'm afraid i haven't explain this clearly enough, but i wanted to avoid particular examples as much as possible that might be distracting. --WD RIK NEW 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Second and related, unless it is demonstrated otherwise by the kind of direct citation we need to not violate NOR, "race doesn't exist" (or similar) isn't a significant alternative answer to the various questions that we describe answers to in this article.

I think there are more than enough citations and quotations to make this significant. This isn't about point and counter point anyway. It is about presenting all significant viewpoints. I think we need to avoid having and article that appears like a debate, present each case clearly and leave it at that.

As a first step in this direction, I propose that literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominantly in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence.

Should we do this, we should also limit all literature about heritability of intelligence to those studies that speak explicitly to heritability of intelligence as it relates to race, not "groups" or individuals. I don't know if this is such a good idea-- I think we should try to do this though. Shall we start making a list of what must be culled as a result of this restriction? futurebird 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Futurebird, I think we would have to do as you suggest to comply with WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

glossing over race

To reply to some of WRIK's points:

However, making this claim in the abstract doesn't mean that we must then note the definition of race used in every subsequent study we describe.

Actually, I think it does. To cite studies as supporting one another, or supporting a particular POV, we must give the critical context of "race" to clearly differentiate what is actually being described. Of course, WRIK is right, many pro-racialist studies studiously ignore this issue, and I can understand why he would want to ignore it as well - if Rushton were to explicitly state the numerous definitions and conflations of the term "race" he used in his studies, one might question the validity of his work. And in fact, many do, specifically on that basis. I believe it is not NPOV to ignore the question of "race" regarding a cited study, simply because the study does either a poor job or no job at all of clarifying the question.

The reason is that the subsequent studies we describe do not make the point of having a particular definition of race that they distinguish from other definitions.

Perhaps we shouldn't cite studies that don't have a particular definition. This seems to be a red flag for an unreliable source, and a common problem with much of the pro-racialist literature (that they liberally cite studies that do not use the same definitions).

"race doesn't exist" (or similar) isn't a significant alternative answer to the various questions that we describe answers to in this article.

Which is why I'm asserting that the questions being posed are violating NPOV by ignoring the critical component of "race". As a geneticist, you've found a structure that fits your worldview - things are either caused by genetics, or the environment. This is not an NPOV way of framing the issues regarding "race" and intelligence.

Regarding a point by SLR: As a first step in this direction, I propose that literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominantly in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence.

I would agree with the caveat that explicit critiques of racialist scientists and their findings cited here should be allowed, even if those critiques are not predominantly in the context of "Intelligence". As mentioned before, the logical conclusion to this guideline would be to exclude any "supporting" evidence that does not explicitly discuss race and intelligence (for example, intelligence heritability studies that don't address BGH, or race studies that don't address intelligence). Unfortunately, with prominent names like Rushton, who attaches dozens of variables to a racial-hierarchy, including intelligence, garners criticism from all quarters.

Lastly, as per WRIK - the only way to do this is to have each topic discussed in this article be as narrowly tailored as possible.

I would assert that to be as narrowly tailored as possible, we must be as specific about the usage of "race" in any given study. Otherwise, we are actually implying a broad application that is not true or proper. --JereKrischel 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As a geneticist, you've found a structure that fits your worldview - things are either caused by genetics, or the environment. This is not an NPOV way of framing the issues regarding "race" and intelligence. -- When the question is what causes race differences in intelligence this is the way that the debate is described in the literature. I've cited the major review papers (APA, WSJ, and S&R) in support of this way of characterizing it. I came to believe that this is the way the debate is characterized in the literature by reading these sources and then seeing that others agree. You've cited papers which talk about race in the content of psychology in general or even race in the content of intelligence, but they do not support your position -- you have inaccurately interpreted them as supporting a view that they do not actually endorse. My confidence in you being incorrect and me being correct is not shaken by the suggestion that being educated in genetics gives me a world view that precludes me from understanding this literature. Consider the Sternberg paper you cited -- this one is most on topic -- here is the abstract:

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.

A number of claims are made, but none of them are that "race is a social construction with no scientific definition" is a third answer to the question of what causes group differences. As the abstract reads, they instead use this to question the utility of the research. The further conclude against there being evidence for a genetic contribution to group differences, arguing against certain evidence being sufficient. No where do they say they are making a new conclusion. --- I'd like others to look at this issue closely, look at the literature itself, and look for reviews which actually say that a *third* hypothesis for the cause of group differences is that race doesn't exist. If I'm correct, you will find that they do not exist, and that arguments about race are actually arguments that environmental/social rather than genetic factors are the cause of observed score differences. --WD RIK NEW 23:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point again, due to your world-view and desire to frame the debate in conformance with that world-view. You are framing the question as "show me a third hypothesis that says the cause of group differences is that race doesn't exist". This is an improper statement of the question. The fact that race does not exist does not mean it is a "third hypothesis", it means that the question being asked is being challenged itself. Much like, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" can be challenged as an improper question, "Are racial differences in IQ genetic, yes or no?" is an improper question. There is a whole host of implication and assumption in the question of wife beating, just as there is in the question of racial differences. --JereKrischel 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Revised Outline

This outline is more what I had in mine. The outline above makes a lot of assumptions and the history is not prominent enough.futurebird 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• 0 Intro

• 1 History

1.1 Race

1.2 Intelligence testing

1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race

• 2 Contemporary questions

2.1 Race

2.1.1 Genetic hypothesis

2.1.2 Validity of "race"

2.2 Intelligence testing

2.2.1 The psychometric approach

2.2.2 Multiple forms of intelligence

2.2.3 Cultural variation

2.2.4 Developmental progressions

2.3 Average gaps among races

2.4 Explanations

2.4.1 Environmental factors

2.4.1.1 Test bias

2.4.1.2 Characteristics of tests

2.4.1.3 Socioeconomic factors

2.4.1.4 Culture factors

2.4.1.5 Public debate and policy implications

2.4.2 Genetic factors/Groups and intelligence

2.4.3 Intelligence as a function of race, contemporary views (Reword? Ideas?)

2.4.3.1 Significance of group IQ differences

2.4.3.2 Public debate and policy implications

Futurebird, with all due respect, why do you propose another outline rather than work with the outline WRN proposed, above? If you do not like his outline you can explain why. But he has made a proposal and people should respond to it, explain why it is completely bad and justify proposing an alternative, or accept it as a working start and propose improvements. WRN has been working on this a long time and whether we agree with him or not, I assure you that his views merit serious attention and we need to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the history section in his outline is prominent enough. I worked with both WD and RK's outlines as a base for this outline. I tried to combine those outlines while, at the same time, addressing the concerns I have been voicing about historical context. futurebird 12:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, would JK and WRN please comment on this outline? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Also, Futurebird, could you see if/how you would incorporate my comments on WRN's outline into yours (it is in my reponse to JK's comments on WRN's outline Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about the revised outline

Looks good except the section "1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race", which seems to misconstrue current research.--Urthogie 20:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In the historical context I don't see how this is a problem, but I agree, we might want a better title for 2.4.3 -- ideas? --futurebird 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Replace 1.3 with "History of race and intelligence research" and...2.4.3....why is that even there? Is there a single hereditarian scientist who think intelligence results from skin color? I'd say remove 2.4.3 (as well as its subsections), and change 1.3 in the way I just mentioned. Also, everything from 2.4.1.5 and on should not be under 2.4! They're not explanations.--Urthogie 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was the point of people like Murray, who said that they had somehow statistically eliminated "social factors" and still found a gap. I thought that their point was that the gap must be a result of genetic factors tied to race, however it might be defined, the gap between the bell curves is then supposed to be a function of the racial grouping. I know that not many scientists have said this, but what is the purpose then, of all of these attempts to 'control for environmental factors'? futurebird 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, though, in any case. futurebird 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The bell curve argues for a genetic/biological basis to intelligence, and it also argues that this is the reason for gaps between "races"-- ie theyre saying that those from sub-saharan africa are less likely to have whatever genetic factor causes intelligence. They are not arguing that the skin itself causes the intelligence, but rather that the areas associated with the races are also genetically associated with certain levels of intelligence.

Also, looking at your outline again I have another criticism to make. While the current article is focused too much on the science, yours seems to focus too much on the history. A compromise would be to organize by subject. History should be a subsection of views on race, not the other way around. I would have to oppose any outline like this that isn't organized around subject matter. And it seems like the page itself has been updated since last time I was here... what specifically is your criticism of the current organization? It already includes History in the background info.--Urthogie 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I meant to imply by intelligence as a function of race. There is a lot more to race than skin color. If it can function as a useful genetic grouping for science (and that is debatable) then what I'm getting at is the ideas that even if the world were free of racism and everyone had equal opportunity and we had the perfect objective method for measuring intelligence you'd find that these racial grouping would not come out equal and that the differences in intelligence would be significant enough to merit attention with regards to public policy. That is the idea that I was trying to get at with the title "race as a function of intelligence" what else could it be called? futurebird 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think you were operating with a mistaken impression of what "function" means. If intelligence were a function of race we could predict someone's intelligence just by knowing their race-- something which is obviously impossible (and the hereditarians would acknowledge this). The idea that you're trying to get at would be called a biological/genetic explanation of differences between race groups.--Urthogie 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the intelligence of a racial genetic group somehow being a function of that grouping by race. And the idea is that there are some kinds of limits to where the intelligence might fall predicted in some significant way by that grouping using race. futurebird 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the justification for a historical narrative of this article as compared to the organization given to science articles, even controversial ones with long histories of controversy (e.g. evolution). --WD RIK NEW 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Because evolution's history as an idea does not add any controversy to the idea. It's controversial solely because of its content. Darwin wasn't a racist, while early race and intelligence researchers were in fact scientific racists. Race and intelligence is thus especially controversial because of its historical context.--Urthogie 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject of this article isn't limited to science. futurebird 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm going to have to retract what I said a bit. The article already does seem to cover history in the background info section... whats the problem?--Urthogie 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The order and the size of the sections, and the way that they relate to each other. futurebird 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?--Urthogie 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't want to clutter up this section too much. I'm going to wait to see what others think. I written quite a lot about this and I agree we need to find a compromise. It's not going to help if I restate the entire case here. Why don't you construct a new outline (don't edit this one anymore) and try to balance the three that have been proposed on this page already? Let's get the ideas out there. Sound good? futurebird 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not express an opinion on what is the exact preferably outline, since I be influenced by what material is added and difficult to determine in advance. However, the subject is certainly not limited to some kind of snapshot of current state of the genetic vs. environmental debate. The subject includes the very long history on views of races and intelligence, like the Roman Repulic viewed the white barbarians as poor slaves due to their stupidity. It also includes how these views have been used to justify policies, like genocides and slavery, historically and now. It also includes a discussion and history regarding by who and why these views are advocated, researched, and funded.Ultramarine 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

the only changes I would make to this article

The outline actually seems to address the history concisely. It has a concise number of sections as well. Here's what I would suggest being added:

• Add more background information, like define what heredity is... this article needs to be more understandable for those outside of science.
• Make it clear that just as there is no "race" gene discovered, there is no "intelligence" gene discovered as of yet either.
• Avoid presenting findings as fact. State that they are findings, and in case of relatively unestablished findings and controversial ones, make clear who found them.
• The effect of (self-)racism and inequality on intelligence development.
• The effect of the womb environment and premature birth on childhood development.
• The effect of vitamin D defficiency because of melanin in a cold environment
• A discussion of how fast intelligence changes over time, and how many generations it would take to equalize the gap.

The article is honestly pretty scholarly, and to be honest it suffers less from policy and guideline problems than your average non-featured article.--Urthogie 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many of these 'scholarly sources' represent a small minority, even among supporters of the idea of heritable intelligence. They are researchers who propose that races ( ie. Black, White, Asian etc.) are valid genetic groups and the differences in IQ scores between different races represent genetic inferiorities and superiorities in intelligence for races of humans. This article has been deftly written to conflate the idea of heritable intelligence (one, that while still debated, is at least respected in mainstream science) with the idea of a heritable racial intelligence.

I'm cheered to find that after reading this article you still feel that discussing a "narrowing gap" is even option! I see in this essay a strong current to discourage that type of thinking, and that current is given undue weight. (I'm not saying that the possibility should not be mentioned, but should it be the focus here? Should it be so prominent?) A heavier focus on the history of this topic is required to explain why these questions are so interesting to people at all, and why they are the focus of so much attention and debate. The article says that the ideas are controversial, but it fails to explain why they are controversial. It's not just because of the scientific methodology, it is the context in which these discussion are occurring: western societies which are still in the process of emerging from hundreds of years of scientific racism.--futurebird 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources on environment

My personal view is that the dfferences are substantially cultural, social, and environmental. I believe if there are any genetic causes they're minor enough that they can be fixed in a few generations. I seriously advise against modifying the article organization, as it seems its a bit POV to make history get its own section, when its really part of the background.

I got tired of editing this article, but if you want to be a soldier, here's some material (ammunition?) for you:

• IQ of poor hispanic kids raised 2-3 points over a short period of time simply by giving them vitamins.[1]
• Breastfeeding caused "An 8.3 point advantage (over half a standard deviation) in IQ remained even after adjustment for differences between groups in mother's education and social class". Blacks rarely breastfeed: [2]. This graph underexaggerates the effect the breastfeeding discrepancy has on the IQ gap, because:

• the study on breastfeeding actually requires that the breastmilk is a significant part of the diet, which is very rare for black infants in comparison to other "races".
• Its a graph of only in-hospital breastfeeding. When people are in the hospital they're more likely to do whats good for their baby than what they'd do unwatched at home.[3]
• Many of these IQ studies have been based on people born several years ago, sometimes even decades ago. As you can see from the upward moving graph, the discrepancy was even higher then.
• For more info on breast-feeding and race/ethnicity, do this simple google search. Make sure to only use the authoritative sources.

• Several studies, such as this one have found that lead poisoning at a degree of 10 µg/dL caused an average 5.8 point IQ decline. Blacks have always had more exposer to lead than white on average[4], although for kids born today today the issue is largely negligible. However it's still significant because many of these IQ tests were performed on people in periods when lead poisoning was much more prevalent.

• One thing to note is that this is a significant factor even if environment is controlled for by twin studies or adoption studies, because the early home environment has the greatest affect.

I'll add more as I find it. Message me on my talk page if you need more "ammo".--Urthogie 05:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

None of this ammo is any good since using it would violate WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jensen (1998) has a lengthy discussion of non-genetic biological factors that could contribute to the BW gap. I used that text to write Race_and_intelligence_(Explanations)#Nongenetic_biological_factors long ago. There hasn't been much done with it since. Jensen is a very prolific writer and he may have written about this in other texts which could be used to expand the section. --WD RIK NEW 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Health and intelligence may be the venue for some of this. --WD RIK NEW 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflating 'heritable intelligence' and 'heritable racial intelligence'

I really think that you are making some good points here, and the sources are interesting, however, it's not really the claims about the heritability of intelligence that bother me in this article.

Credible scientists have done research that support heritably of intelligence-- So, I think, for our readers, that should be an open question-- we don't want to convince people one way or the other. We'll present the evidence and they can decide.

But, what we cannot do, and what the article does now, with its present structure, is conflate the idea of a heritable intelligence and a heritable racial intelligence. Do you see what I mean by that? There is credible research about some aspect of intelligence being heritable, perhaps that research is wrong, but it's not our place to say, really. We just present the facts.

What there is very little of (unless funded by the Pioneer Fund) is research that suggests that there is some aspect of race that is also a genetic component in heritable intelligence. That is: "race as a function of intelligence." In the article, as it is written now, research that talks about the heritability of intelligence is used to support the this idea that heritable intelligence is a function of race. That is, it's pushing the marginal POV that some races are inferior to others. This is what I find so intolerable about the present structure. It's very hard to tell that this is going on-- until you start looking at these things through the lens of history, then the intentions are crystal clear.

I hope that I'm making sense. I'm not dismissing you evidence for a strong influence of environment-- In fact we ought to use it, along with any credible evince that intelligence may be inherited. And we need to isolate all of this credible science from the marginal scientific racism, rather than using credible science as evidence that is meant to bolster claims of scientific racism.

I hope this makes sense. futurebird 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"race as a function of intelligence." simply doesn't exist as a credible hypothesis-- even among those who work for the Pioneer Fund. The question is what the IQ differences between groups mean and what causes them. "race as a function of intelligence" is pure, unscientific racism, the type produced by the KKK and white supremacy groups, and is not even part of the scientific debate.

Imagine there was a gene for intelligence (as of yet, no single gene or group of genes has been discovered directly). Hereditarians argue that this gene would be unequally distributed between groups from certain geographic areas.

Just about all of the research in this article is done on scientific grounds... its basically all mainstream science. It may not appear mainstream because it's probably the biggest taboo in public life. Unfortunately, even if "race" is a non-scientific concept (I certainly believe so), and "intelligence" is a non-scientific concept, there are still huge questions that have to be answeered... how do we explain the fact that tests that control for environment find significant gaps between people of different ancestries? This is where we have to decide on a hypothesis: either environmental, mixed, or genetic.

The hypothesis of an inheritable ability to score well on IQ tests (controlling for environment) is pretty rock solid. It's not just a few scientists who have shown this, but rather many scientists from all points of view producing pretty overwhelming evidence.

To summarize, we can't really avoid this debate by claiming "race" and "intelligence" aren't scientific.--Urthogie 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"race as a function of intelligence." simply doesn't exist as a credible hypothesis-- even among those who work for the Pioneer Fund.

Okay, now I'm just confused. Becuase, if this was the case, then the article would only mention environmental factors in intelligence and not mention genetics at all. (I'm not saying it should do this) What is the point of bringing up genetics in a article on race and intelligence except to frame intelligence as something that is fixed for various races through genetics? Isn't that the point here? If it is the point could we at least say so, plainly? futurebird 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Pioneer Fund researchers are trying to demonstrate "intelligence as a function of race" rather than the reverse.--Ramdrake 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I meant. futurebird 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No they're not... they're trying to demonstrate that average intelligence differs between groups. they wouldn't say for example, that being an albino african raises intelligence, as this racist functional idea would suggest.--Urthogie 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, they are trying to demontrate that average IQ test score differences are due to genetics and not environment.Ultramarine 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it closely, they really are trying to say that some "races" are genetically smarter or dumber than others-- and that the average gaps in intelligence will not be closed completely, even with more eduction, better heath care, cultural changes and an end to racism and stereotypes. futurebird 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no contradiction involved in what you're saying here and what I'm saying above. The genetic explanation does not imply that intelligence is a function of race, merely that a gene is more common in a given "race".--Urthogie 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, interesting studies you added above. I will add them to Health and intelligence and other articles as they get unprotected.Ultramarine 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant to this article as well, for reasons I wrote.--Urthogie 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's go!

There seems to be a lot of support for making a new article called Race and intelligence (Research) and making this article more general. We keep getting side tracked-- let's start constructing the new article, and request unprotecting for this page. futurebird 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Where has this been discussed? Prima facie it sounds like an POV fork to me. --W.R.N. 04:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• FB if you are talking about a prototype to replace this one, I'm game to help in th edevelopment, but if you're talking about an end result of two articles splitting this info. I'm against. --Kevin Murray 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know that what you propose has any bearing on unprotecting this page.--Kevin Murray 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• this is the proximal reason for page protection. --W.R.N. 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about making an article called Race and intelligence (Research) and moving the content that needs to go there to that page, then requesting unprotecting the page and doing a massive rewrite. futurebird 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by -- I agree with the idea that the page ought to be split or renamed. A page called "race and intelligence" seems like it would have to delve into the concept of "race" and the concept of "intelligence", which this page ...even the first sentence says this page is about research. Katsam 09:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible - because of our NPOV, V, and NOR policies, that any article on the concepts of race and intelligence not also be on research on these concepts. It is an encyclopedia, after all. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal is to remove all research from the article, just to move MOST of the research to a subarticle with a link like

Main article: Race and intelligence (Research)

futurebird 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, if our NPOV policies forbid us to split these articles, shouldn't the decision to split the rest of the subjects (Media, Utility of research, etc.) be rescinded? I mean, either we can or we can't split off the articles. I'm as concerned that these split-offs we've already done are POV forks than about the possibility of creating an additional POV fork.--Ramdrake 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess, better formulated, that my point is if we already split off some articles from the original corpus of data of the topic, we then shouldn't be objecting to one more split, especially given the size of the article. Either we split or we don't; however, we've already done some splitting, so...--Ramdrake 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, with all due respect, you need to be clear on the difference between a POV fork, which is prohibited, and a content fork, which is encouraged as articles get too long. There must be pages explaining this stuff but I do not know the links off-hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted, absolutely. Then, I must have expressed myself badly: there have been content forks spun out of this article in the past. They have raised some objections of POV forking from at least one or two editors here. Now this new content-forking proposal is being turned down on the basis of possibly being a POV fork. In my opinion, I cannot find this one more of a POV fork than any of the others before. If this one is to be called a POV fork, at least some of the others before probably qualified as well. If this isn't called a POV fork but another content fork, I don't have any problems. I hope this is clearer.--Ramdrake 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is of course based on the assumption than any article that would cover Race and intelligence as a wider subject would at least briefly touch on the current research on the subject, without delving into it like the current article does. To me, that goes without saying.--Ramdrake 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is a contentious article, but I really do not understand why there is any contention over how to characterize it: it is about the relationship between race and intelligence. What if any relationship there is is controversial, so the article has to cover those controversies. Some will have to do with the nature of intelligence (is the G factor real) some will have to do with the nature of race (is it a proxy for genetic populations of socio-economic groups) and some will have to do with the relationship itself (is it causal in nature or a correlation caused by something else? Is the relationship significant? Is it based on direct or indirect evidence? Is it a statistical artefact or not?). This to me is what the article is about and I wouldn't think it would be too hard to organize an article that covers these controversies in cogent ways. Personally, that's what I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think the same way but I'd go just a tiny bit further and say the relative size of each controversy (over the meaning and utility of race, over the measurability of intelligence as a single number, and about the possible relationship between the two) and therefore the space devoted to it in the article should be on the same order (same order - not same size!!!) for all three controversies. It shouldn't make a pre-requisite that people have to accept the meaningfulness of race and its coherence with social definitions of it, and neither should it require that people have to accept the unitary measurability of intelligence. I believe all three controversies need to be eplored conjointly in the article if it is to feel balanced and NPOV.A lot of people don't even talk about the race-intelligence debate because they are on a side of either the race or the intelligence debate that precludes the race-intelligence debate from being a scientifically legitimate debate. And maybe, it could use being renamed "The race and intelligence debate(s)" ("s" optional).--Ramdrake 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I think you're now moving from an area that's supported by references to an area that is not. In my experience there is approx. one article per month published about "the possible relationship between the two" and the content of article isn't focused on the "possible" aspect of that characterization. In WP, there are articles for race, intelligence, IQ, and other related topics. This is the article about the relationship between race and intelligence. To the extent that debates about the individual ideas relate to this debate, they are discussed, but otherwise (on these topics) we only need a summary of the debate here, while the actual debate is detailed elsewhere. This is my understanding of the text in NPOV describing articles about topics that operate under some controversial assumption. The actual text of the assumptions in the intro is poor -- Arbor and I at times tried to fix it -- but the APA report makes clear the working assumptions of most people in this field. --W.R.N. 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The APA report makes clear that they speak about "groups" not "races" - I think, WRN, that the APA report confounds your assertion that the article should simply be a discussion of "are race differences in intelligence genetic", rather than a more holistic view of R&I that appropriately addresses criticism of the fundamental question and assumptions itself. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Ramdrake. But if RIK doesn't mind I would like to rephrase his comment in a way I think Ramdrake will easily agree with: Wikipedia articles are (at least when they are on topics of scholarly research, whether comparative literature, sociology, philosophy, or astronmy) really best conceived as accounts of a body of scholarly literature. This is a simple way of understanding two of our core policies, WP:NOR and WP:V. It is not for us to interpret or synthesize that literature, only provide an account of (or "represent") it. If there are interesecting literatures, we provide an account of the intersections. If there are controversies in the literature, we provide accounts of the controversies. If you are familiar with the many genres of academic writing, I think the best model is a "literature review" or "review essay" as exemplified in the volumes put out annually, for a variety of disciplines, by Annual Reviews (Stanford). Nor, RIK, if I may speak for Ramdrake ... as you ought to understand by now, I think his goal is not to put words in scientists' mouths but rather to ensure we are compliant with the other core Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV. I am convinced that NPOV and NOR/V are not in conflict in this article; I am convinced that it is possible to write an article that is fully compliant with all policies. Ramdrake, this means exploring the controversies only insofar as they exist in the published literature, especially peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by academic presses, but also trade presses if by acknowledged scholars in relevant fields. RIK, this means including academic literatures that do address race & intelligence debates that you seem resistant to acknowledge, especially in sociology and anthropology. Ramdrake, this means being very careful to avoid forwarding our own synthetic claims even if based on published sources. I believe Jere made just this mistake towards the end of this section. But RIK, I believe Jere was citing an entirely acceptable source in this section. I think if RIK can be more attentive to NPOV and Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JK more attentive to NOR, we will make much more progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion, SLR - my "mistake" was intended to answer your question, and give evidence for why inclusion of the "race is an invalid proxy" is important, not intended for inclusion into the article. I understand that we aren't supposed to do original research, but my current criticism is that we should give the important context of what definition of "race" and even "intelligence" is being used by a given study cited. Too much of WRN's contributions have lacked that critical context, and as such, present an invalid implication of uniformity. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Of course, I agree with SLR's interpretation. If I can try to rephrase what I said, the "race" and the "intelligence" debates need to be reported in this article on "race and intelligence" insofar as they have an impact on the validity of the "race and intelligence" debate, or its outcome, and have been cited in some connection with the "race and intelligence" debate somewhere in the literature, whether it be the psychological, anthropological, biological, medical or even philosophical (or historical!) literature. It all needs to have already been connected together somewhere, that's a given, but I am not ready to restrict this to just the "intelligence" literature of psychometricians. I hope this was clearer, and more kosher towards all WP rules.--Ramdrake 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are several outstanding issues that need to be worked out in some fashion in this thread. In that thread, my policy concern is that sourced material is being removed or bastardized. The content vs. POV fork page is WP:POV_fork. --W.R.N. 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think that much of the pruning of excessive citation is important to building a good article. Not to mention the importance of avoiding improper strawmen in framing the issue. Much of the content may in fact be useful, but what you see as "bastardization" is an attempt to move towards NPOV. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Among WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, the criteria for inclusion in WP is WP:NOR and WP:V. WP:NPOV determines how things should be written and to an extent which article they should go into. WP:NOR can also determine the inclusion or not of material in specific ways. You never have to remove something substantial that satisfies NOR and V in order to satisfy NPOV. --W.R.N. 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Simply having 10,000 pro-racialist papers and quotes is not free license to include every point-by-point argument from them. Nobody is asking for a significant POV not to be represented, we're merely asking for a fair balance of content, and summary of the research, rather than a detailed, point-by-point expose promoting the racialist POV. This is a common sense issue that I'm very surprised you can't understand.

The strawman table you had constructed was not "substantial", it was excessive and misleading. None of it was necessary for an understanding of the topic, or the debates around the subject. It is akin to posting the detailed batting statistics, by pitcher and time of day, for every team in the major leagues, instead of just listing out who played in the World Series by year, and who won. There is such a thing as too much detail, and I believe NPOV:Undue weight helps guide us. --JereKrischel 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you agree on principles but you guys will never make any progress if you leave it at this abstract discussion. What you need to do is, for each of the four bullet points I put forward, above, is come to an agreement about what can and must be cited for each bullet point issue - which passes the NOR and V test. Then you can discuss how to organize the presentation of the material in an NPOV compliant way. But you need to get to specifics. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, I think you may misunderstand my about NOR and context. I agree with you that context is important. But unless the source explicitly addresses race and intelligence or is cited in a book or article that is excplicitly about race and intelligence, you cannot add it to the article, even with the argument that it provides context. Such an argument still violates NPOV AND NOR (because it is your understanding of the context for race and intelligence, not the understanding of a verifiable source).

JK, I think you also misunderstand the undue weight issue. First of all, if there are many citations one has a reasonable case that the views should be given a lot of weight. The point is not that there may be 100 articles published by Rushton who is only one person, but that there may be 100 articles published in 100 different peer-reviewed journals meaning they are given weight by different editors and external reviewers. Second, weight is not just measured in the number of citations. There are many review articles I have read that lay out two positions, and position one is followed by ten citations, and position two by three citations, and it is clear that both have equal weight. Why? Well, one objective measure is citation indices; it could be the three articles for view two are cited much more than the ten articles for view one. I am providing a hypothetical example. My point is you should stop thinking of this as a game in counting citations and stop trying to get RIK to delete citations for work that is relevant and complies with NPOV and V. You will go nowhere (except maybe to ArbCom). What you should be focused on is understandint what the opposing views are, and finding appropriate and relevant sources for those opposing views. Your constant appeal to context seems to me at this point to be an excuse not to research the actual opposing views, opposing views that are expressed in articles and books that directly address the race/intelligence controversy. You know that those books and articles will pass the NOR/V test, and RIK will have to accept him? So why do you waste time trying to get him to accept articles that do not pass the NOR/V test, or trying to get him to cut articles that do pass the NPOV/V test? Don't you want to improve the article? Don't you want the other views to be presented fully? If so, why are you wasting your time pursuing dead-end tactics when instead you should be following the one tactic that is guaranteed to work (include sources that comply with NOR and V that directly address the race-intelligence controversy and that are critical of Jensen, Rushton, and Murray)? It almost looks like you don't really want to "win." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible new intro

I seriously doubt everyone here will agree that this is the right way to start this article, however I want to present this new intro so that we can have a bit of contrast from what's on the locked page right now and so people can get an idea of what this article could be like if framed in a different way, one that didn't ignore the historical context of this topic. This intro starts right off with historical context. As I'm reading the article over for the third time in its locked condition I'm stuck by the way that "race and intelligence" is presented as a topic that "belongs" to the people who do research into the relationship between race and intelligence rather than a topic that is much bigger than just the research, a topic with a long and significant history. The topic is called "controversial" when, in fact, the controversy isn't over the topic as much as it is over the significance and the meaning of the ideas in the topic. I'm not the most artful writer, but I would love to have some feedback on this new intro. Feel free to re-write it and post your own version. Something like this could be our starting point.

The possibility of a relationship between Race and intelligence has been a topic of study for western science, sociology and philosophy ever since differences in human appearance were first characterized as races. Early notions about the differences between races grew out of stereotypes about non-whites developed during the period of colonialism and slavery. Ideas about relationships between race and intelligence were used to explain and justify conquests of territories, cultural genocide, forcing some people in to inhumane conditions, and legal barriers that prevented non-white people from exercising power and control over their lives and land.

As the study of intelligence grew in to a more systematic and rigorous science, researchers developed tests such as the IQ tests that they hoped would measure intellectual capacities. Evidence became available about significant gaps between the tests scores of oppressed minorities and the test scores of "Whites" and "Asians". The causes of theses gaps has been the major source of the modern controversy. There is significant disagreement about which environmental factors may be involved and if genetics may play a role.

Research about human races has also been a significant source of controversy, since some researchers denny that race is a meaningful scientific category for the study of intelligence. Likewise, the idea of a 'measurable intelligence' is also controversial since many people question weather or not IQ tests measure innate qualities of individuals, or if culture and environment may play the primary role.

The heart of the controversy is the source of the gaps in contemporary tests scores. What do the gaps between the bell curves represent? This article will present a wide variety of explanations that may illuminate answers to this question.

futurebird 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The "intro" is not for background per se, but rather an abstract or summary of the article. "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (see WP:Lead). --WD RIK NEW 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think futurebird is suggesting that his intro should be a concise overview of the article, and that the article should follow its lead. I think the interesting question this poses is, "Is this article about "Race and intelligence (Research)" or "Race and intelligence"? Perhaps a sub-article called Race and intelligence (Research) could be a better place for the detailed methodological controversies, and the R&I main page should be for an article outlined by futurebird's intro. I think maybe part of the problem people are having with your POV WRN, is that you've arbitrarily decided that this article should be primarily about research studies, their results, their refutations, their counter-refutations, and their counter-counter refutations. Could we clear the air by moving most of the detailed debate on the scientific studies to a sub-article? --JereKrischel 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! I think creating such a sub-article would reduce confusion greatly, allow for a more through presentation of the research (and counter research) in depth, and avoid cluttering up the main article --while, at the same time, making room for a more general and encyclopedic exploration of the topic. Of course, we could summarize the research section in a few substantial paragraphs, since it is one of the significant aspects of the topic. futurebird 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Futurebird's intro needs to be rewritten a bit (like the study of the measure of intelligence started with measuring children, not races, and the first instances of racism weren't against Blacks), but I think that's minor, overall. I really like the wide frame which is given to the subject. While I'm not sure the scientific debate should be boiled down to a single section, it can certainly be made to be more concise (instead of looking like a full match description as it does now). That this new intro forces some rewriting of the article (even very extensive rewriting) might turn out to be good thing, actually. The only problem where the framework might need to be tightened is that "race and intelligence" in the intro is conflated with ideas of "racial superiority" at large (which is racism, pure and simple). Something should be done to avoid this article from turning into a second article on racism, but I think that can be done with just a bit of work.--Ramdrake 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Those changes sound fair. I think it would be a great step forward if we all could agree on expanding the scope in a way something like this.futurebird 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would a straw poll on this specific question be appropriate? "Do you agree to expand the scope of the article at least roughly along the lines it has been suggested above?" Please Also feel free to say if you think a straw poll is inappropriate at this time.--Ramdrake 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to write the new intro once we have resolved the contentious issues, since the purpose of the intro is to introduce the article as a whole and right now that article is in flux. frankly, it seems to me that introducing the issue of rewriting the intro at a time when it is impossible for me to imagine any consensus is just an attempt to derail my attempt at mediation by creating a tangent that will move us away from addressing the bullet-point issues, still unresolved, I singled out above. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm presenting this in order to suggest where the article as a whole should go. I feel that this article has a problem with scope-- and the present conversation is focusing in on details of the "scientific" debate about this topic. What about the history of racial stereotypes about intelligence, what about laws that were meant to address racial differences in intelligence? All of these fall under the heading of "race an intelligence" but this article is being restricted to only the science. I'm alarmed to see this happening.

I think we've all gotten used to the article as it is right now. Let's open ourselves up to the possibility of addressing this important topic in its entirety. In doing so we will resolve many of the POV problems that we're having right now. It is because the content of this article is presented as "pure science" outside of the context of history that it becomes so important, and contentious how much time is devoted to one theory or another and how many counter studies are included etc. We will never agree on the science aspect, since some people seem to think that this scientific debate is still alive, and as long as they can find citations to support those theories we must include them. We should then present them for what they are without trying to corbel together a tit-for-tat case for or against each theory.

What I think we need to focus on now is: Why this topic is significant? A small difference in the IQ test score of people who self-identify as different races is significant primarily because of the historical context in which this difference was discovered. Otherwise, it'd just be a piece of trivia. We should also think about Why is this topic controversial? I think that the answer to that question is the same. It is the historical context that leads to much of the controversy.

I wrote this intro because I thought that people here were having a hard time even envisioning what I had in mind. futurebird 13:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention, and if this has the effect you hope for, kudos. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

>This intro is much better. I vote for it. I would help put an article like this together. This will make this topic more balenced. I'm shocked at what you have up here now! 69.3.244.201 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)