Talk:Race and intelligence (average gaps among races)

Kudos

Wow someone has done an incredible job with this article. This is and the other articles in the series are probably the best introduction to the IQ debate available anywhere.

I would be interested in the racial demographics of the contributors to this article. It goes without saying that the racial classification of the individuals who hold the beliefs purported in this article is something that any moderators of this article (who themselves would have political and social viewpoints that may be far from objective) would be wise to look at in order to determine how representative this article is of the variety of viewpoints that exist (I'm sure that this point recurs frequently).

Also, given a subjective opinion (ie: "This is and the other articles in the series are probably the best introduction to the IQ debate available anywhere.") sounds more like an advertisement for alcholic beverage that it does for sound scientific and apolitical analysis (though, nobody said that that is what we're looking for here).

--Nukemason 19:53, August 1, 2006 (UTC)

I generally support Chomsky's opinion on that issue:

I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I work would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race." I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction.[1]

But figures in this field who don't consider group differences off-limits have included representation from Whites, Jews, Asians, and African Americans (Thomas Sowell [2]).--Nectar 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This page will be marked as NPOV until the identical charts and passages from the main race and intelligence page have been NPOV'd. Jokestress 19:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

what's up with this now? --Rikurzhen 07:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

For starters, title should be changed to average test score gaps among races, so we can move all that IQ stuff here instead of the "main" page. Jokestress 22:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The complication with that title is that brain size doesn't fit well with "test score".

Question: all that IQ stuff here instead of the "main" page what stuff? --Rikurzhen 22:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The brain size-intelligence correlation is not well-established, and anatomical stuff should go under the neurology section. The articles as they stand make a bunch of tendentious connections and infer a stronger correlation than has been established. There should be at least six articles to explain the possible connections:

• "race" and neuroanatomy
• neuroanatomy and "intelligence"
• "race" and "intelligence"
• "intelligence" and test scores
• test scores and "race"
• neuroanatomy and test scores

Jokestress 01:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Slow down there. The brain size-intelligence correlation is not well-established. This is false. If you are basing your judgement on article content on that belief, this will be a problem. McDaniel (2005) is the latest meta-analysis of IQ and brain size, and finds an overall correlation of 0.4. See Thompson and Gray (2004) for a broader review of the literature on brain/intelligence relationships -- thanks to MRI, correlations have been worked out to the level of specific brain structures. As to your suggested list of articles: The main problem is that you cannot discuss the science of "intelligence" without discussing test scores; no other measure of intelligence exists which can substitute for test scores (even measures of intelligence that purport to not be IQ tests are "tests" nontheless, such as creativity tests). So it is not feasible to divide a discussion of things related to "test scores" and "intelligence" into separate articles. For exmaple, neuroanatomy and test scores and neuroanatomy and "intelligence" are not distinguishable -- all of the literature on intelligence/neuroanatomy relies on psychometrics and g -- and the current WP article for this idea is Neuroscience and intelligence. Likewise, I don't know how you would divide "race" and "intelligence" from test scores and "race", although this very article tries to focus on just the data rather than interpretations of cause. The intelligence (trait) article covers "intelligence" and test scores, with most of the test scores material in IQ. This leaves "race" and neuroanatomy, for which historically material could be covered in Craniometry, but is most relevant here. --Rikurzhen 01:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I guess we need an IQ and intelligence article too, then. Brain size-IQ seems to have been correlated in some studies, but others suggest brain size and intelligence have not. Both this and the "main" article are almost entirely about IQ and present exhaustive analysis of IQ data, but they barely discuss the controversy surrounding IQ. The race/IQ chart that appears on every page is, to me, one of the major agenda-pushing elements of this series. Just because IQ is widely used and is the best available evidence does not mean it is conclusive or even meaningful. That debate needs to be aired in the article(s). Jokestress 15:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess we need an IQ and intelligence article too, then. if you insist, but intelligence (trait) would seem to be the right place for that discussion, as most articles link there and it has the most general title; otherwise more detailed criticism of IQ can go on the IQ page.

Brain size-IQ seems to have been correlated in some studies, but others suggest brain size and intelligence have not. Both this and the "main" article are almost entirely about IQ and present exhaustive analysis of IQ data, but they barely discuss the controversy surrounding IQ. I'm afraid that the "controversy" surrounding IQ is not deep enough to support the kind of robust discussion you are seeking. There is no serious alternative for intelligence testing that isn't a de facto IQ test, even Sternberg's tests turned out to predominantly measure g. Add to this the fact that g makes up almost 100% of the predictive power of IQ scores. For that reason, "IQ" is the metric upon which things like "retardation" or "giftedness" are measured, and IQ (although the tests have various names) is the measure by which average group differences in intelligence are quantified. If there is a serious controversy around IQ, it is that IQ doesn't measure all behaviors that might be described as "intelligent", but most experts seems to think that it measures most of the important aspects of inteligent behavior. This is why, as DAD pointed out, review artices aimed at the general scientific audience say that g is the sense of intelligence they will focus on and then move on:

In this review,we emphasize intelligence in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability (BOX 1). Also called FLUID INTELLIGENCE (Gf)11, it is related to analytical intelligence12. Intelligence in this sense is not at all controversial, and is best understood at multiple levels of analysis (FIG. 1). Empirically,Gf is the best predictor of performance on diverse tasks, so much so that Gf and general intelligence (g, or general cognitive ability) might not be psychometrically distinct13,14.Conceptions of intelligence(s) and methods to measure them continue to evolve, but there is agreement on many key points; for example, that intelligence is not fixed, and that test bias does not explain group differences in test scores15. Intelligence research is more advanced and less controversial than is widely realized15–17, and permits some definitive conclusions about the biological bases of intelligence to be drawn.[3]

The race/IQ chart that appears on every page is, to me, one of the major agenda-pushing elements of this series. Just because IQ is widely used and is the best available evidence does not mean it is conclusive or even meaningful. That debate needs to be aired in the article(s). We should develop the "what is intelligence?" debate as fully as possible on the intelligence (trait) article, and then as per WP:NPOV we should only state the necessary assummption about IQ as a "brief, unobtrusive pointer". As this part of NPOV policy states "There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial." We should not describe the debate on every page: "there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page". The best page for an "what is intelligence?" debate is the the intelligence (trait) page. --Rikurzhen 17:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Just because IQ is widely used and is the best available evidence does not mean it is conclusive or even meaningful. Aside from test bias, which was settled long ago, there is no reason to think that an IQ difference isn't meaningful or conclusive. (I know of no one who says they aren't meaningful; consider Atkins v. Virginia.) That is, conclusive about there being a skills difference, and meaningful insofar as those skills are useful. The "IQ" metric shown in the charts (which are WISC-R scores, I think) could be substituded with SAT (college entrance) scores, or NAEP (education) scores, or AFQT (military) scores, and they would paint the same picture. The use of "IQ" scale numbers is just for the sake of communication -- most scores are converted to the IQ scale for the sake of presentation. The Sternberg-Gardner point (Triarchic theory of intelligence and Theory of multiple intelligences, but note Sternberg is a critic of Gardner) about IQ does not lessen the acutal importance of IQ, rather they are trying to stake out further aspects of behavior to be labeled "intelligence", with variable success. Moreover, even if Sternberg were right, it would not change the fact that there is a group difference in g, even if g were not a full (enough) description of intelligence. I've never read Sternberg argue otherwise. --Rikurzhen 18:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Old measurments

The text present in great detail very old data and even has several images. These are not very interesting because 1) skull size and shape has changed and 2) doubtful methodology, for example many of the old studies claimed to show to whites had larger brain size than East Asians. Therefore they should be summarized in a brief paragraph and the images removed. Objections? Ultramarine 16:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Some studies, both historical and modern, have shown that Whites have larger brain size than East Asians. Others (such as Morton's Crania Americana) showed that East Asians' were larger than Whites. However, when adjusted for average body size, East Asians always come out above Whites in terms of encephalization quotients. And even though the pictures are old, the illustrations are important because they show the extent that the same thing that is being debated today was known over a hundred years ago, and that the same trend (Black --> White --> East Asian) appeared then as it does today. And what is your evidence for the claim that the methodology was doubtful? Dd2 05:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

See my cited paper. Ultramarine 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Which cited paper? "How 'Caucasoids' got such big crania and why they shrank"? Dd2 15:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Ultramarine 17:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

Here is the explanation for the deletion of this paragraph: "Several historical studies from the 19th century and early 20th century found racial differences. However, they often argued that whites had the largest measurements which was the politically correct view at the time. This is different from more recent results [4]. The results may also be of little relevance for current differences, because, as noted later, brain size and shape has changed greatly."

Problems with this paragraph:

• The studies that I know of that included East Asians ranked them in front of Whites in terms of brain size
• Insinuating that the studies showed Whites had larger brain size out of political correctness is original research
• The claim that the results have little relevance or may be different today (and it's not; the order is still the same) has no citation and as it stands is original research. Dd2 05:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Changed due to above critic. Ultramarine 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

NEANDERTHALS

IQ can change depending on environmental conditions from day to day,stress can change iq scores being sleepy,or emotional factors like anger or depression,which just happens to be highest among people with poor medical access and poverty in general,also scientific evidence proves that the neanderthal had larger brains than humans,they werent smarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.38.73 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 19 August 2005

True, but not consequential. Also, wrong article. --Rikurzhen 17:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

We cannot make representations of the intelligence of Neanderthals unless we can point to scores that Neanderthals achieved on intelligence tests. Also, let us not forget that skull size does not allow us to compare brain sizes. Neanderthal brains may have had a different distribution of ratios of cortex (gray matter) to cross-connecting axons (white matter), or their cortexes may have had a different distribution of wrinkledness. Brain size aside, there are many convoluting factors....

The Neanderthals failed the biggest test of all; they failed to evolve. 205.161.226.94 07:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people speculate that the Neanderthals had higher spacial/visual intelligence than Homo Sapiens.

Samuel Morton

Samuel Morton actually didn't mention that East Asian skulls were bigger. See this source: [5] He was among the few that claimed that white skulls were bigger.

From PBS:

Samuel G. Morton (1799-1851), a Philadelphia doctor, collected and measured hundreds of human skulls in order to confirm that there are inborn differences among the races -- above all, a difference in brain size. His systematic large-scale experiments made him a pioneer of American science, especially the discipline of Physical Anthropology, which studies the biology of human populations.

Living in a time of slavery, when Indians were in full retreat, Morton was confident whites were naturally superior. He belonged to a school of thought called 'polygenism,' which held that the different races are different species, with separate origins. This contradicts the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Morton also thought he could identify any skull's racial origin simply by measuring it. Modern physical anthropologists no longer make this claim. And 'race' is now seen not as a biological fact, but as a social and cultural perception.

Morton assumed that brain size bore a direct relation to intelligence, so he tried to rank the races by measuring the brain cavities of human skulls. He poured skulls full of lead pellets, then dumped the pellets into a glass measuring cup. When he found that individuals within each race varied widely he set out to compare averages by measuring many skulls.

He ended up with more than 300 Native American skulls from North and South America, probably because they were the easiest to obtain. He also had 100 skulls from Egyptian mummies and a sampling of skulls from other races and populations. His tables assign the highest brain capacity to Europeans (with the English highest of all). Second rank goes to Chinese, third to Southeast Asians and Polynesians, fourth to American Indians, and last place to Africans and Australian aborigines.

Using Morton's raw data the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould checked these results. He found Morton had manipulated his data, overlooking inconvenient exceptions. Gould assumes that brain size correlates most closely with height. The bigger the body, the bigger the brain, regardless of race. Rereading Morton's notes, Gould concludes that Morton doctored his results by relying on smaller individuals -- in particular, women -- to lower the figures for the races he wished to prove inferior. Once Gould eliminated body size as a factor he found that all races have roughly the same brain capacity.

Other resources:

   * Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, 1981, W.W. Norton, New York
   * Stanton, William, The Leopard's Spots: Scientific Attitudes towards Race in America, 1815-1859, 1960, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
   * Frank Spencer, editor, History of Physical Anthropology, 1997, Garland, New York
   * American Anthropological Association, "Statement on Race" in Anthropology Newsletter, September , 1998 (www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

External Links

The two external links at the bottom of this page are not only NPOV but actively endorse a point of view that is controversial to say the least. For more on Steve Sailer, visit the [6] page. Hesperides 00:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the above commenter is referring to footnote 31 "Richard Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective," The Mankind Quarterly 31, no. 3 (1991): 255–96; Means for Progressive Matrices and 12 reaction time measures for 9-year-old children from five countries." The two links from here go to a website called 'Upstream' that is an extremely POV source. In it's introduction it says "These pages are a home for the intellectually heterodox, the politically incorrect and other independent thinkers. A home for outlaws. You will find reading lists and book reviews, original essays and commentaries published right here, information about interesting and useful organizations, and links to other Net resources.". I.e. this is hardly a source for this page. If you don't believe me, go to the website, and have a look around. You'll find pages about how heterosexual AIDS is a myth, and other lovely topics, including an extensive section that is exceptionally POV about race and ethnicity. Indeed, the page http://www.gnxp.com/ is used at least twice as a citation, depsite it being a highly POV conservative blog page. I think unless the person who put those links in can find academic citations, those must be deleted. What also concerns me is that within the references page for wider race and intelligence articles on the Wikipedia, you tend to see a lot of people associated with the Pioneer Fund, Charles Darwin Institute etc. It would be nice if someone with extensive experience on this topic could write a criticism page within this article itself to balance things out and show that these results are not totally viewed as gospel. Very nicely presented page though. Cheers, Hauser 05:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Upstream simply reprints previously published articles. Their reprinting of critical articles has sometimes been helpful.[7]

2. The two GNXP refs actually refer to the same article, summarizing studies that suggest the B-W gap may be less in Britain. One of the easiest arguments to accept regarding the credibility of the site is that some scientists publishing in related areas frequent the site and have occasionally authored posts there.

3. The main article in this series covers the criticisms of the Pioneer Fund and related accusations of bias.--Nectar 10:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept your comment following reading more about Richard Lynn, though admittedly I (nor most other people reasonably informed about the scientific debate owouldn't view sources from the Mankind Quarterly (being a Pioneer Fund-sponsored publication) as being NPOV and unquestionably academic. Nor the fact that Lynn himself is a highly controversial and not always well regarded academic make the extensive use of his research in this article valid. I disagree with your point on GNXP and maintain it is not Wikipedia quality to reference it. I do not accept the fact that the Pioneer Fund information is dealt with on the 'main article' in the series: if you read this article, it effectively mimics the stances taken by the Pioneer Fund and there is very little criticism of the idea that race and intelligence are linked on this page, and first time readers of this page will believe everything that is on this page is entirely undisputed fact. Hauser 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This article doesn't even discuss the partly genetic hypothesis. Do you mean readers might think race and intelligence are correlated, regardless of the cause? These groups scoring differently on IQ tests is not disputed by any scientists in intelligence research.

The main article discusses the numerous contextual arguments, and this sub-article discusses the data that constitutes this area. Like it or not, Jensen and Lynn are some of the primary sources in this area. The other references in this sub-article.. Roth et al.. Makintosh.. Harvey et al.. Nisbett.. Ho et al.. Grudnik and Kranzler.. etc. etc.. certainly haven't accepted grants from Pioneer.

I'm not going to debate about those two sentences referencing GNXP.. remove them if you want.--Nectar 10:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hauser, I was the person who started the "External Links" section on this page and I removed the two Sailer links, but I'm almost certain they weren't the ones you speak of (though my memory could be playing trick on me. Hesperides 00:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

data analysis by gender

The data is clear that test results are consistantly different for racial groups. What is not clear is the significance of the data. Tests can be culturally biased, neonatal health can affect subsequent developement, societal bias can affect things, as well as poverty, and societal expectations.

I would be interested in the black females/white females comparison as separate from blackmale/white male results. That would hold bias/poverty/nutrition variables constant and focus on societal expectations. If black females are close to white females whereas black males are below white males it would suggest a diffent cause for the data than if the analysis shows no difference by gender.

152.133.6.195 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Todd

Great points, Todd.--futurebird 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OR

It is plainly a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to find supportive data unrelated to the question of Race and Intelligence to build a point. --JereKrischel 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV continues

I've added the NPOV tag due to the lack of definition over "black" or "white". without this, the average IQ numbers do not mean anything, and can only be a POV rather than fact. --Rebroad 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The citations are ubiquitous in this series of articles, but happen to not be on that sentence. They've been added. --W. D. Hamilton 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of these sources are over ten years old. A lot chanes in that time. Do you have anything more recent? futurebird 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion of BW IQ scores in the main article and this article. The discussion in the main article is more up-to-date. --W. D. Hamilton 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Great point, Rebroad. These data are meaningless without a clear definition. futurebird 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gottfredson (1997) - 8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered. --W. D. Hamilton 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Neisser (1996) - Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites --W. D. Hamilton 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a definition of "black" or "white" in these articles. All I see is that 52 out of 100 scientisis who were contacted for the article were willing to say race was linked to IQ... back in 1994 (and, the link need not be due to entirely genetic factors.)futurebird 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

These source don't define "black" or "white" because these terms are universally understood in the context used, but Neisser 1996 does give definitions. They are the same as those found in the main article, which gives relevant background on the issue of race. --W. D. Hamilton 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to support your assertion that "these terms are universally understood"? --JereKrischel 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a neutrality dispute

You guys might think these data are meaningless without a definition, but the researchers don't, and Wikipedia is reporting their views neutrally. --causa sui ^talk 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree. There are many people who share this view point. Without a definition of race that is clear-- what can any of this possibly mean? Instead of reflecting scientific evidence it may only reflect historical ideas of race used to justify racist public policy, and segregation. This article has a strong POV because it presumes that race can be measured in a universal way suitable for scientific study. You say that " Wikipedia is reporting their views neutrally" --those of us who object are a part of wikipedia too. Please respect our opinions and the opinions of the people in the scientific community who also question this kind of research. No one has even attempted to answer the question "How do you know if a person is black or white?" futurebird 05:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your personal objections to the researchers' views do not entitle you to have your opposing views represented in the article. That is the mainstay of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. We report the views of others neutrally, no matter how morally repugnant we may find them, and Wikipedia is not censored against the possibility that neutral and verifiable information could possibly be used for evil purposes -- if it were, the encyclopedia would contain very little information indeed. --causa sui ^talk 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • These are not just my personal views. futurebird 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then the inclusion of content that makes use of distinctions between races should not be a problem for you. --causa sui ^talk 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that regardless of how one characterizes the dispute, there are problems with this article. Reporting the views of only one POV, and treating them as fact rather than assertion, is rife throughout the text. Including content that makes use of racial distinctions is not a problem until we present those distinctions in a completely uncritical manner. To date, Rikurzhen/WDHamilton has done a commendable job in drawing up a meta-analysis research paper that could be published in a Pioneer Fund journal. He has not done a good job of balancing the article with data, opinion, and information contrary to his POV. I would further argue that Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for such detailed point-by-point arguments, and although mediawiki software may be a good tool to use, such original meta-analysis research papers should be written elsewhere. --JereKrischel 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• The "one POV" you are describing is actually the set of views found in the scholarly literature. What you describe as the Pioneer Fund view is the view of the APA's intelligence task force, the 52 professors who signed the WSJ statement and the hundreds who responded to the opinion survey conducted by Snyderman and Rothman. What you call a distinction between fact and assertion appears to me to be an attempt to portray all claims made in the research literature as doubtful whether there is actually any published doubt or not. The articles on evolution, global warming and other controversial sciences aren't written in this manner and neither should these articles. What you are actually suggesting is that all of the research literature that you dislike should be described in terms that skeptics of intelligence research would use, despite the fact that this is not how the research is described in scholarly literature reviews and the collective-statements. If there's doubt about a report in the literature, this doubt should be described and ascribed to those who hold it; it shouldn't be used to paint an equivalence of uncertainty where the multi-author reviews suggest there is none. Moreover, the full description of what's written in the research literature is not metaanalysis (the statistical integration of multiple original studies) and it's not original so long as it builds from existing literature reviews, but rather it is the appropriate application to neutral sourced writing. Several principles regarding NPOV from arbcom seems to apply: (1) It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. (2) The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible. (3) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues. (4) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. (5) Wikipedia articles are edited from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates that all significant viewpoints regarding a matter shall be appropriately represented. --W. D. Hamilton 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is fairly obvious that the scholarly literature does not have simply "one POV". Your interpretation of opinion polls does not give the POV you support some sort of blessed status. Your conflation of intelligence research with the question of race-based research is the leap of faith that is most often criticized -> that race is a good proxy for genetics. Your complete lack of balance in your well-researched but one-sided set of articles makes for a problem. I understand that you truly believe that your POV is the "one POV", and that scientists like Lieberman somehow represent a fringe or minority view, but again, your interpretation of opinion polls and selection of literature differs from others. We can certainly cite similar statements from prominent groups and scientists decrying the utility of race as a scientific category, just as you may cite a poll that asserts that most people think there is some genetic component to the B-W IQ gap in the U.S.. One might go so far as to assert that your POV is fringe, but I certainly wouldn't use that against you to insist on the removal of your information (as it seems you'd like to assert about the anti-racialist POV). Again, you've done a commendable job on writing a pro-hereditarian research paper, but it is better hosted at gnxpwiki.com than wikipedia.org. --JereKrischel 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote, "The "one POV" you are describing is actually the set of views found in the scholarly literature." You wrote, "I think it is fairly obvious that the scholarly literature does not have simply "one POV"." Do you see the disconnect? I guess I should have been clearer in the use of the phrase "set of views", but I assumed that that term clearly indicates a multiplicity of POVs. But your interpretation and response seems implausible to me -- the implication would seem to be that I believed that the one POV was the modal POV of the S&R survey. However, the issue of ignoring the "set of views" that are established as significant by the 3+ major sources remains. In the current content, this means suggesting that it is an NPOV issue to report what the APA, WSJ, S&R, etc. report as the scientific mainstream view as such. In the context of the explanations article, it involves the attribution of the consensus view to Gottfredson alone (while calling her a controversial researcher, suggesting that what she was describing is also controversial), renaming the two major POVs on causation (partly-genetic and environment only) to terms that don't represent what the majors sources describe, and removing 30k of cited material that reports the details of the debates between the two major POVs on causation (with the edit summary that they describe a straw man position). --W. D. Hamilton 06:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, your "3+ major sources" certainly do not illustrate or prove a predominance over the other major sources, that challenge the racialist POV. Neither is your use of POV based rhetoric (the characterization of "partly-genetic" and "environment only") within the terms of organization of the article appropriate. It would be just as POV pushing to characterize it using the terms "racist" and "anti-racist" (rhetoric used by some anti-hereditarians). Furthermore, creating 30k+ of tit-for-tat meta-analysis of evidence is worthy of a research paper, but not very encyclopedic. Please, take your wonderful work, and put it someplace more appropriate like gnxpwiki.com. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research journal for detailed meta-analysis of evidence. --JereKrischel 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a neutrality dispute. Please see WP:NPOVD if you are in any doubt, and do not remove the NPOV tag as this would be in breach of wikipedia policy. Thanks. --Rebroad 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that many editors think these articles are non-neutral, but in fact these editors actually have a problem with the neutrality of the researchers being cited. --causa sui ^talk 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to characterize it as a problem of balance - researchers on both sides of the issue will have their own POV, but both POVs should be presented with some balance. Currently, the articles read like a research paper doing a meta-analysis for only one POV. --JereKrischel 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The text describing the BW gap as it is described by the WSJ and APA reports (cited above) has been removed from this article. In this case, the "one POV" is like the "one POV" that anthropogenic climate change is real. But moreover, the reasons given for removal are that the terms "Black" and "White" are problematic. --W. D. Hamilton 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From your APA citation - These groups (we avoid the term "race") are defined and self-defined by social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable physical characteristics such as skin color. As well as, The Genetic Hypothesis. It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. . I find it hard to believe that given the prominent importance you put on the APA citation, that you would disagree with the problematic nature of your POV pushes in this article. Given the APA text, shouldn't this article be named, Groups and intelligence (United States)? --JereKrischel 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)