Jump to content

Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 308: Line 308:
::''Correlation between race and intelligence'' is not a particular meaningful phrase. Does this refer to self-identified race/ethnicity or actual genomic ancestry? The first is well-documented (e.g. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x Roth et al 2001]), while the second is not (no published study to date using genomic methods, unless you count [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925365/ Akshoomoff 2014] who reported some quite indirect results). There is however a well-known relationship between intelligence and skin tone in admixed populations (reviewed decades ago by [http://emilkirkegaard.dk/arthurjensen/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf Jensen 1973], but there are recent studies too), and there is obviously a strong relationship between skin tone and genomic ancestry ([https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1440 Parra et al 2004]), so some have proposed that the two relations reflect just that ([http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-02880-002 Lynn 2002]). I advice editors against reading obviously partisan outlets like [[Southern Poverty Law Center|SPLC]] and taking their word for granted about what is and is not mainstream belief by experts within the field. Instead, I recommend reading recent textbooks (e.g. [https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/110746143X Haier 2017], [https://www.amazon.com/Human-Intelligence-Earl-Hunt/dp/0521707811 Hunt 2011]), review articles (e.g. [https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104?error=cookies_not_supported&code=0c74de0a-9ede-4c67-b020-6cc04ef6e909 Plomin and von Stumm 2018]) and surveys of expert belief (e.g. [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full Rindermann et al 2016]), which are quite in line with the current lead. [[User:Deleet|Deleet]] ([[User talk:Deleet|talk]]) 00:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
::''Correlation between race and intelligence'' is not a particular meaningful phrase. Does this refer to self-identified race/ethnicity or actual genomic ancestry? The first is well-documented (e.g. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x Roth et al 2001]), while the second is not (no published study to date using genomic methods, unless you count [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925365/ Akshoomoff 2014] who reported some quite indirect results). There is however a well-known relationship between intelligence and skin tone in admixed populations (reviewed decades ago by [http://emilkirkegaard.dk/arthurjensen/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf Jensen 1973], but there are recent studies too), and there is obviously a strong relationship between skin tone and genomic ancestry ([https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1440 Parra et al 2004]), so some have proposed that the two relations reflect just that ([http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-02880-002 Lynn 2002]). I advice editors against reading obviously partisan outlets like [[Southern Poverty Law Center|SPLC]] and taking their word for granted about what is and is not mainstream belief by experts within the field. Instead, I recommend reading recent textbooks (e.g. [https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/110746143X Haier 2017], [https://www.amazon.com/Human-Intelligence-Earl-Hunt/dp/0521707811 Hunt 2011]), review articles (e.g. [https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104?error=cookies_not_supported&code=0c74de0a-9ede-4c67-b020-6cc04ef6e909 Plomin and von Stumm 2018]) and surveys of expert belief (e.g. [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full Rindermann et al 2016]), which are quite in line with the current lead. [[User:Deleet|Deleet]] ([[User talk:Deleet|talk]]) 00:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|MPants at work}} Thanks for the improvements to the lead. What do you think of the SPLC's argument that the article gives undue weight to the views of Rushton and Jensen? Has that been addressed at all? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|MPants at work}} Thanks for the improvements to the lead. What do you think of the SPLC's argument that the article gives undue weight to the views of Rushton and Jensen? Has that been addressed at all? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
::The SPLC's article accurately reflected the expert consensus as has been conveyed to me by a number of experts, both through academic and popular publications and personal communications. The article itself cites enough sources to get you started in seeing that, and you can see it most clearly by searching for scholarly articles in the subject while discounting anything published in ''Intelligence'' or ''Frontiers in [fill in the blank]'', both of which love to publish works claiming there's no consensus, or that the consensus is that there's a measurable link between race and intelligence. I had barely begun to address that (by including more mainstream thought and spending less text describing the fringe position) when I decided there was no point and basically retired from editing.
::I stopped editing partially because I'm sick of dealing with racist bullshit like the comment above yours: which starts by saying "Correlation between race and intelligence is not a particular meaningful phrase" and then '''immediately goes on to argue that there's a documented correlation between race and intelligence'''. If partisan bullshit like that (see "...obviously partisan outlets like SPLC..." if you doubt there's any political component there) is acceptable because the editor is being polite and not edit warring, then what's the fucking point of even trying to fix this shit? It's the people who actually care about accuracy and verifiability who are going to end up getting pissed while the POV pushers just keep smiling and acting like they're just "trying to improve the project" by making sure that what WP says about this subject is pretty much the opposite of what the expert consensus is.
::But you want some advice on this particular situation? Read the comment above yours. Look at what journal the "surveys of expert beliefs" was published in. Look at how cheap those "textbooks" are (ever seen a college textbook under $180?), read the actual nature article cited (which absolutely '''does not''' correlate "race" and IQ, contrary to what the comment suggests), look at the way it uses decades old (and discredited) research to build to a conclusion that even that research doesn't explicitly state. If you find the argument there compelling, consider that the following uses the '''exact''' same argument: Hair color is genetic. Obesity has a genetic component. Therefore, there must be a correlation between hair color and obesity. Makes perfect sense when you're talking about a notion that exists in the public consciousness already, but once you apply that logic to something novel, it becomes obvious how utterly shitty it is. But that's what we get, not only from SPA editors like this, but from racist psychologists and the occasional misguided defender of scientific inquiry who cry foul over over the "suppression" of scientific research into the relationship between race and intelligence all while ignoring the fact that it's about as valid a subject of inquiry as would be research into the relationship between personality and astrological sign. Sure; they can argue that race is related to ethnicity, which ''is'' real, but they ignore the fact that I can turn around and argue that astrological sign is related (via conception date) to a host of socioeconomic and genetic indicators which play a role in personality.
::Now, understand that '''that''' is the level of obfuscative bullshit you are going to have to wade into in order to deal with this. This is one of those "smart people arguing for stupid ideas" things that one so often hears about but so rarely encounters. If you can stomach dealing with that shit long enough to tire out the defenders of this stupid theory then I wish you luck and good fortune. May you persevere where I faltered. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 14:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


== We should avoid citing individual studies, especially new ones. ==
== We should avoid citing individual studies, especially new ones. ==

Revision as of 14:58, 14 May 2018

Former good article nomineeRace and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 4, 2006Articles for deletionKept
April 11, 2011Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former good article nominee



graph

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/1995-SAT-Income2.png

Conclusively disproves the "muh poverty" argument. One has to resort to more exotic explanations like stereotype threat to maintain that the black-white IQ gap isn't partly genetic.68.104.4.53 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A graph is only as good as the data it is based on, says nothing in and of itself, but has to be interpreted, and that interpretation has to come from a WP:reliable source. So... you've shown nothing "conclusively". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tactical agnosticism just to uphold current narrative is just up my alley. There is nothing to interpret here, SAT score gaps are not explained by SES, end of discussion. This graph comes from wikipedia, making it WIP:reliable source. SAT scores being correlated with IQ test is the only leap you have to do here. And we have data on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB04:2C4:AB00:CBE:6B26:EEC6:CCAA (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A graph coming from Wikipedia absolutely doesn't make it a reliable source (in fact, if Wikipedia were the only source a graph relied on, it would definitely not be a WP:RS; we at least need an outside, published source for the data.) But the problem in this case is that the data is pulled from different sources and combined to push a particular interpretation, which is WP:SYNTH. We need a source that makes that argument directly in order to include it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. —PaleoNeonate – 19:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Race and intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and update of the article

In the article lead is stated "Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it at least plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually be found", while in the section "Genetics of race and intelligence" is made a conclusion that "almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ/[intelligence/cognitive ability]" and so on, yet when made a research it became obvious that this section, and perhaps some parts of the article as "Twin studies" (especially related main article Heritability of IQ), are seemingly outdated and biased. See:

Twin study:

Intelligence and genetic differences studies:

Update (1):

The article has a number of inaccurate generalizations and conclusions; however, unless enough editors who are interested in honest editing get involved, the bias and obfuscation will remain. What is needed is proposed rewording with Wikipedia:Requests for comment.Phmoreno (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree. This whole article is a politically inspired unreadable mess. Why cannot the high Wiki priests allow two articles, one promoting (heresy?) the concept, and the other denying it, and then allow readers to examine the respective concepts?
189.250.245.41 (talk) baden k. —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily because that's not the way we work - we don;t do "He said, she said" pairs of articles, that's called WP:COATRACKing. We report what reliable sources say, so the only way the article can be changed is if the scientific consensus, as reported by reliable sources, changes. There's also the matter of WP:WEIGHT. The list of citations posted by Miki Filigransk above needs to be evaluated to see if they are sufficient to provoke changes in the article, or if they do not carry sufficient weight to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding IP comment, as Ken replied, read WP:NPOV to understand on which principle the article topic is edited. Personally, I presume they are sufficient to make small changes, but would let more experienced and those interested in the topic to make any conclusion and editing. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Test Outcome and IQ used Interchangeably

This article continually confuses Tests and Assessments, such as "SAT" and "GRE" with IQ measures. These are completely different types of assessments. A group's SAT or GRE score trends says nothing about its IQ trends.

Regular school assessments are heavily influenced, by Education, preparation and cultural importance of education ( cultural differences ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.19.110 (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to review the sources of this page and edit the page accordingly, it appears this page was (allowed?!) to be edited in a manner that uses false references (literally dead links or links to other links that are dead, LITERALLY). And it seems to be the ones denying or attempting to mystify whether or not there is any correlation between race and intelligence. Very disappointed to see fake crap all over this page. Give us the real nitty-gritty truth and cut the crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4501:7D75:F130:2F4B:AFE4:607F (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know what is "false", so why don't you list all the falsities here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it"

That's the title of an article in The Guardian today.[1] It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." Doug Weller talk 11:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is a bit WP:FORUM, but would reply that with Intelligence research should not be held back by its past.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Miki Filigranski: I've made no comment, everything but my signature and the bit about it being the title of an article is a quote. Nothing forum about posting a possible source. I'm not sure of the relevance of your link but it doesn't seem to conflict with the argument being put forward in the Guardian article. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that experts on intelligence research (Rindermann survey) has rated The Guardian as one of the least accurate newspapers with regards to the topic. See here. As such, I recommend caution when using that source on the topic. Deleet (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

In the following sentences beneath the "Heritability within and between groups" subheading there are a couple of typos. < My comments in angular brackets like this >

< First > Former APA president Donald T. Campbell heavily criticized the methodology of the it's findings and the credibility of signatories. < omit the second "the" and remove the apostrophe from "it's" >

Former APA president Donald T. Campbell heavily criticized the methodology of its findings and the credibility of signatories.

< Second > A 1995 report by the APA stated that there is more plausible evidence for an environmental than for a genetic explanation, but that the was "no adequate explanation" for the black-white IQ gap. < change the second "the" to "there" >

A 1995 report by the APA stated that there is more plausible evidence for an environmental than for a genetic explanation, but that there was "no adequate explanation" for the black-white IQ gap. 2601:642:4300:2CC1:2D97:C3C6:2D36:5392 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very helpful. Iselilja (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

Add that, but note that generically bigger brain size isn't the strongest cause of superior intelligence[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8483:e200:2d81:2d44:f84e:89e1 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, which would be needed for any sorts of medical claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is also irrelevant to this particular article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal admixture

Can someone add a paragraph under "racial admixture" about Neanderthal admixture. Based on the following findings:

1. Amount of Neanderthal admixture in modern humans seem to correlate with IQ (highest in East Asians, lowest in Africans). Archaic human admixture with modern humans

2. Neanderthals had larger craniums, suggesting larger brain size. Neanderthal anatomy

3. Neanderthals were probably not stupid, based on archeological findings. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientists

4. The amount of DUF1120 gene copies seem the correlate with brain size and IQ, and was higher in Neanderthals than in humans. DUF1220

5. Haplogroup D of the microcephalin gene seems to correlate with brain size, and is hypothesized to have been introduced to the human genome via Neanderthal admixture. Microcephalin

It's a stretch but worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaTwist (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a stretch, it's also WP:OR. You need to find a source that says exactly the thing you want to have said without using multiple sources to WP:SYNTHESIS a new fact. But even more than that, Neanderthals were either a distinct special or a sub-species, and whatever "race" means, it doesn't apply to a distinct species or sub-species, so what you're proposing wouldn't be appropriate for this article. (All "races" of humans are considered to be one species.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth pointing out that the human brain has been shrinking over time and that The average IQ has been growing; facts which render rather dubious the purported link between large neanderthal brains and higher IQ. If you're going to do original research, at least be thorough about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never purported to doing original research, nor that I was thorough about it. I posted a theory that I've heard tossed around on the Internet. I thought it was worth a mention.
Regarding the brain size, there's a weak positive correlation (0.4) between brain size and IQ. It's even written in the source that you're referencing (Discover Magazine). It says "recent MRI studies show that brain volume correlates with intelligence". It also says that the shrinking stopped about 100 years ago. It says "After a long, slow retrenchment, human brain size appears to be rising again.". And the Flynn effect has only been noted since the 30's. So the brain shrinking and Flynn effect don't even coincide. Who's not being thorough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaTwist (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the brain size, there's a weak positive correlation I bolded the relevant word there. You should probably check some of the papers published on that and see what the margin of error is: it's important. Finally, you should note the numerous caveats repeated throughout such studies; that measurements of IQ can be subjective and show a wide variance between testers and circumstances. (The Flynn effect has been noticed across such a huge sample size that it's almost certainly real, though.) Also: the discovery source you supposedly quoted doesn't actually say either of the things you quoted it as saying. Nor does the article, nor either of the other refs used for the pertinent quote from the article I linked you to. So it seems yours is not just a failure to be thorough, but a failure to accurately represent what the sources say, as well...
Finally, my point was not that smaller brains equal higher IQ; but that doing original research is a bad idea unless you're setting up a proper methodology for it, and it's never acceptable to use here. Until a reliable source says something, it's not on us to find fringe theories with cherry-picked sources to support parts of them, then present the theories as facts, or even possibilities in the article. However, if you want to do a write up about this on your blog (Wordpress has free blogs if you don't have one), taking into account all the contradicting evidence out there as well as the supporting evidence, I might be interested in reading it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, —PaleoNeonate – 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed the science was cut and dried. Of course it's very subjective and heterogeneous, as you point out. But the general trend seem to be, again, "a weak correlation between IQ and brain volume". As for the Discovery article, it says all the things I quoted (it's on page 3 of the article). I literally just copy-pasted. Or are you suggesting that I quoted out of context? I don't think I misrepresented the article. But whatever, let's end the discussion. I will admit to being wrong about everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaTwist (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to repeat my point, (already repeated twice and also said by at least one other editor) because you're still not addressing it; original research -which by definition includes an editor compiling cherry-picked evidence for a fringe theory not taken seriously by the experts- is unacceptable content for our articles. If you cannot find a reliable source that says it explicitly or implies it so strongly that no other possibility remains, then you cannot include it in our articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consider merging this with the page on Scientific racism.

I'm not sure what the difference between the two pages is. --2601:189:4203:133D:C02:CFBF:AB6B:94EC (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed - This article is about theories concerning race and intelligence. The other article is about practices arising out of those theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'. Scientific racism is a value laden term, thus fails NPOV. Mainstream sources concern this topic without calling it scientific racism. See also this previous discussion about Phil Rushton (can't find the link right now). Deleet (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Heritability within and between groups" appears to have some original work.

" In biology heritability is defined as the ratio of variation attributable to genetic differences in an observable trait to the trait's total observable variation. The heritability of a trait describes the proportion of variation in the trait that is attributable to genetic factors within a particular population. A heritability of 1 indicates that variation correlates fully with genetic variation and a heritability of 0 indicates that there is no correlation between the trait and genes at all. In psychological testing, heritability tends to be understood as the degree of correlation between the results of a test taker and those of their biological parents. However, since high heritability is simply a correlation between traits and genes, it does not describe the causes of heritability which in humans can be either genetic or environmental."

The preceding cut and pasted quote has no citation and appears to lack rigor and any history of critical examination.

"Therefore, a high heritability measure does not imply that a trait is genetic or unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability and the heritability of a trait may also change over time in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors.[48"

This quote from the article does not appear to be truly supported by the source cited. In fact the opposite. The source [1] is in PDF and I don't have Word on this machine so it is difficult to quote, but the second half of pg 86 of the cited source directly contradicts the assertion made in the article. It specifically mentions the ability of heritability measurement to indicate both environmental and genetic factors when the source is discussing the differences and similarities found in twin studies. So this article section not only appears to be original work but it also appears false when the cited source is examined.

" In his criticism of the Bell Curve, Noam Chomsky further illustrated this with the example of women wearing earrings:..."

Noam Chomsky is a linguist. That's his expertise. I personally enjoy reading Chomsky's many interesting opinions regarding many political subjects, but this quote in no way supports any assertion regarding psychometry other than coverage of political debate. The source is used as a refutation of aspects of psychometry in this article when it is actually only qualified to be political commentary.

There is likely more as the opening paragraph is so very flawed regarding heritibility measurement.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:4071:8ADA:AF10:1BA4 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://matt.colorado.edu/teaching/highcog/fall8/nbbbbchlpsu96.pdf
You are incorrect about Chomsky. His writing is also extremely influential in behaviorist psychology (eg. see here) and somewhat influential in evolutionary psychology; both fields are extremely relevant to the arguments in The Bell Curve (since they study alternate explanations for many of the things that that book attributes to genetics) and which make his responses some of the most significant and widely-cited ones out there (and therefore makes it obvious that we have to cite them here.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals

I have changed the following sentence twice:

It is well-established that intelligence is highly heritable for individuals, and many different kinds of genetically caused intelligence impairments are known. But the possible relations between genetic differences in intelligence within the normal range are not established. Ongoing research aims to understand the contribution of genes to individual differences in intelligence.

(The bolding is mine, of course.) The change is not very important. But I think it is an obvious improvement of formulation. The "for individuals" in the first sentence is vacuous. This article uses "indivudual" a lot. As far as I checked, it was motivated in the other places by the need to distinguish between characteristics of persons and characteristics of groups of persons. Here, there is no such need. If a trait is allways either heritable for both individuals and groups or not heritable at all. This is because all inheriting occurs to individuals. The groups inheritance (so to speak) is only the sum total of what the individuals inherited. The "individual differences in intelligence" part is allmost unintelligible. I think what is intended is "differences between individuals in intelligence". I removed it but will put this interpretation in there. The whole paragraph is rather cryptic, though. --Ettrig (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there's edit warring going on over this. BMK's edits are correct, and while they may not be perfect from a grammatical standpoint, they do clarify what the sources say. Heritability is a feature both of individuals and populations, as evidenced by that rather obscure scientific theory known as Evolution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ettrig has continued to push his edits, not waiting for a consensus to develop here. (In fact, at the moment, the consensus is against him.) I suggest that he wait to see if other editors weigh in with their views, and what the overall consensus is, and not continue to attempt to push his edits in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "for individuals" in the first sentence is vacuous. No, it is not. Heritability is a characteristic of populations, just like it is a characteristic of individuals. Skin and hair color, eye shape and color, height and numerous other factors are quite obviously highly heritable, and are all features associated with races. So to say that it's vacuous to specify which we are referring to in this sentence is, itself vacuous.
The groups inheritance (so to speak) is only the sum total of what the individuals inherited. That doesn't make the group inheritance go away. It merely provides an explanation for it.
The "individual differences in intelligence" part is allmost unintelligible. I had no trouble understanding it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heritability is NOT a characteristic of individuals. It is the proportion of phenotypic differences between individuals that is explained by their genetic differences. For example, an individual's height is not heritable because neither his height nor his genes vary.

What seems to be the issue here is heritability within and between groups, such as races, however operationalized. It's not about "heritability in individuals", which is a meaningless string of words.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you want to get pedantic about it, heritability is a feature of characteristics, not of either groups or individuals. But both groups and individuals have characteristics which are partially determined by those characteristics' heritability. If you want to be pendantic about one turn of the phrase, then you can damn well be pedantic about the other, as well. We're not going to take a hot button issue like this and argue over the problems with one phrasing, only to replace it with a different phrasing that has the same damn problems. That's a red flag for a POV push. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Herring-bone musketeer growling lamp coffee parsimonious pillow.
(Just thought I'd contribute an actual "meaningless string of words" for purposes of comparison.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sheep. It was very purple kumquat of you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heritability has a specific technical meaning that is used in the literature on race & intelligence as well as in the general genetics literature. Similarly, heritability within groups and between groups are terms used in the relevant literature. We should use these established terms in the way they are used in the literature rather than invent our own terms for use in Wikipedia.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not an academic work, nor is it a technical treatise, it is a popular encyclopedia. Our article is not part of "the literature". This is something that subject experts frequently fail to appreciate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. We are not required to present the jargon, grammar, syntax or exact wording of a source. We are required to present it's meaning. This is why we have human editors, instead of bots that simply copy quotes from sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. All interpretive claims, analyses and synthetic claims included in Wikipedia must be based on verifiable sources. Sources must directly support everything you add to Wikipedia. You are not allowed to reinterpret sources and invent a new terminology on your own.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, if you seriously think anything I said runs afoul of any policies here, you need to go find another hobby. No-one is inventing a new terminology; no-one is engaged in original research. You need to get out of your stuffy office or basement or wherever it is you read your academic works and understand that the word "jargon" exists precisely because the common meaning of a term and the way it's used in academic works aren't always the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Chmara: I'm afraid your argument is silly. MjolnirPants and I can make mistakes, anyone can, but we really do know the most basic rules of Wikipedia, and are extremely unlikely to have forgotten about WP:V and WP:OR. To accuse us of being unaware of them is just... well... silly.
Please make a reasonable argument for your opinion, and drop this absurd ad hominem tact you've taken, because it just won't fly. If you don't have a reasonable argument – and the argument from authority really doesn't work because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog – then please drop the matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you clarify this? Are "heritability for individuals" and "heritability for groups" different things? For example, is it possible for some trait to have high "heritability for individuals" and low "heritability for groups", or vice versa? My impression is that "heritability" is just one thing and that "heritability for individuals" as such makes no sense, but I'm not an expert in this domain. —Ashley Y 07:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, or at least almost right. Your analysis is correct. In the expression heritable for individuals, for individuals should be removed. When it's there, it signifies the untruth that something can be heritable for groups while not being heritable for individuals. We just met such a fierce resistance that we gave up although that resistance was rather incongruous. If you stay on here, we can make that little improvement. --Ettrig (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone ahead and been bold and removed it. —Ashley Y 02:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a small change, but obviously good. So not really bold. --Ettrig (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reverted. Can anyone clarify "heritability for individuals"? If no-one can justify it, I'll go ahead and make the change again. —Ashley Y 03:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question cites no sources whatsoever. I think that that's a more pressing problem than its precise wording. "It is well-established..." is extremely strong wording, and it doesn't appear to really summarize the section below it (which covers a lot of ground, but focuses more on race, mentioning only a few general intelligence studies.) If it's genuinely well-established, we should be able to find sources saying that specifically, and rely on the wording in those to inform us. If we can't find those, we need to remove this sentence entirely. EDIT: Skimming the section for the sentence that this appears to be summarizing, it also looks uncited. The sole citation that is even remotely usable is to a single study from 2009; that is clearly not enough for such sweeping language. Again, if this is "well-established" and "generally-established", finding multiple broad sources to back it up (textbooks, etc) should be easy. I suspect that some sort of sources do exist (which is why I'm placing fact tags rather than instantly removing the uncited bits), but I also suspect that their language is going to be more cautious than what we're using here, and that they will have disclaimers and other context that we ought to be including here. EDIT 2: While scanning the section in more detail to try and determine what the this uncited sentence is trying to summarize and where the factoid it states is cited to, I came across a well-cited sentence that directly contradicts it: They argue that it does not make sense to talk about a single universal heritability figure for IQ, rather, they state, heritability of IQ varies between and within groups. (Cited to Hunt (2010), Nisbett et al. (2012) and Mackintosh (2011).) Based on that, I'm killing the sentence entirely for now. Do not restore it without a source. --Aquillion (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth looking at Heritability of IQ for more information and sources on this point. That article says "between 58% and 77%, (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80% and 86%)", which is certainly "highly heritable", though IMO actually giving the numbers is better than an adverb. In any case, your "no single figure" sentence doesn't contradict that. —Ashley Y 11:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The heritability of intelligence is stated at many other places in this article, mostly with supporting references. Losing one of them is no big deal. --Ettrig (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has problems

See https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already read it. Been working on some of the problems they point out, because when I checked, I agreed with their assessment. In this article, it's (according to SPLC; I haven't gone over this one yet, so I'm not quite ready to endorse their claim) a problem of balance; we're giving too much weight to the fringe stuff and not enough to the mainstream. I'll be looking into this over the next several days, at least (not into the weekend, though). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting to agree with the SPLC. The lede does not accurately reflect the article. It suggests that there's a documented correlation between race and intelligence, then almost immediately seems to grudgingly admit that there probably isn't. The body meanwhile, in the "Validity" section, casts serious doubt on the validity of the concepts of race and objective intelligence testing. That's a huge disconnect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::Come off it, the article is complete hypocrisy. Notwithstanding "far right" whatever that means, this article is controlled by non-expert egalitarians like Doug Weller and Maunus, contrary to mainly hereditarian academia. 31.205.66.133 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck Mikemikev sock. I'm clearly not controlling the article, just trying to keep the socks off. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correlation between race and intelligence is not a particular meaningful phrase. Does this refer to self-identified race/ethnicity or actual genomic ancestry? The first is well-documented (e.g. Roth et al 2001), while the second is not (no published study to date using genomic methods, unless you count Akshoomoff 2014 who reported some quite indirect results). There is however a well-known relationship between intelligence and skin tone in admixed populations (reviewed decades ago by Jensen 1973, but there are recent studies too), and there is obviously a strong relationship between skin tone and genomic ancestry (Parra et al 2004), so some have proposed that the two relations reflect just that (Lynn 2002). I advice editors against reading obviously partisan outlets like SPLC and taking their word for granted about what is and is not mainstream belief by experts within the field. Instead, I recommend reading recent textbooks (e.g. Haier 2017, Hunt 2011), review articles (e.g. Plomin and von Stumm 2018) and surveys of expert belief (e.g. Rindermann et al 2016), which are quite in line with the current lead. Deleet (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: Thanks for the improvements to the lead. What do you think of the SPLC's argument that the article gives undue weight to the views of Rushton and Jensen? Has that been addressed at all? Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC's article accurately reflected the expert consensus as has been conveyed to me by a number of experts, both through academic and popular publications and personal communications. The article itself cites enough sources to get you started in seeing that, and you can see it most clearly by searching for scholarly articles in the subject while discounting anything published in Intelligence or Frontiers in [fill in the blank], both of which love to publish works claiming there's no consensus, or that the consensus is that there's a measurable link between race and intelligence. I had barely begun to address that (by including more mainstream thought and spending less text describing the fringe position) when I decided there was no point and basically retired from editing.
I stopped editing partially because I'm sick of dealing with racist bullshit like the comment above yours: which starts by saying "Correlation between race and intelligence is not a particular meaningful phrase" and then immediately goes on to argue that there's a documented correlation between race and intelligence. If partisan bullshit like that (see "...obviously partisan outlets like SPLC..." if you doubt there's any political component there) is acceptable because the editor is being polite and not edit warring, then what's the fucking point of even trying to fix this shit? It's the people who actually care about accuracy and verifiability who are going to end up getting pissed while the POV pushers just keep smiling and acting like they're just "trying to improve the project" by making sure that what WP says about this subject is pretty much the opposite of what the expert consensus is.
But you want some advice on this particular situation? Read the comment above yours. Look at what journal the "surveys of expert beliefs" was published in. Look at how cheap those "textbooks" are (ever seen a college textbook under $180?), read the actual nature article cited (which absolutely does not correlate "race" and IQ, contrary to what the comment suggests), look at the way it uses decades old (and discredited) research to build to a conclusion that even that research doesn't explicitly state. If you find the argument there compelling, consider that the following uses the exact same argument: Hair color is genetic. Obesity has a genetic component. Therefore, there must be a correlation between hair color and obesity. Makes perfect sense when you're talking about a notion that exists in the public consciousness already, but once you apply that logic to something novel, it becomes obvious how utterly shitty it is. But that's what we get, not only from SPA editors like this, but from racist psychologists and the occasional misguided defender of scientific inquiry who cry foul over over the "suppression" of scientific research into the relationship between race and intelligence all while ignoring the fact that it's about as valid a subject of inquiry as would be research into the relationship between personality and astrological sign. Sure; they can argue that race is related to ethnicity, which is real, but they ignore the fact that I can turn around and argue that astrological sign is related (via conception date) to a host of socioeconomic and genetic indicators which play a role in personality.
Now, understand that that is the level of obfuscative bullshit you are going to have to wade into in order to deal with this. This is one of those "smart people arguing for stupid ideas" things that one so often hears about but so rarely encounters. If you can stomach dealing with that shit long enough to tire out the defenders of this stupid theory then I wish you luck and good fortune. May you persevere where I faltered. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid citing individual studies, especially new ones.

In light of the discussion above, I think it might be worth bringing this up. We ought to avoid citing individual studies for anything on a page like this, especially relatively recent ones. From WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. If a study is worth including, it will generally pick up secondary sources pretty quickly; but since the study of intelligence, genetics, and the brain definitely falls under the "complex and abstruse fields" warning, we need to avoid citing individual papers unless they're very well-established (and if they are, we should be able to find secondary sources and use those.) We might also consider going through and finding things (especially anything particularly controversial) cited solely to a single research paper, and either find a second / secondary source, or remove it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream opinion on causes of group differences

I reverted an edit by User:MPants at work (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&oldid=830440485) concerning the relative weight given to mainstream vs. fringe/minority views. His edit comment:

it's not "considerable" that's just a weasel word that disguises the fact that it's a debate between the mainstream and a fringe position, and the sentence should not start by promoting the fringe position

I disagree. I have consulted expert surveys and recent published textbooks or major reviews by mainstream researchers and they consider the question to be open with most researchers adopting a middle of the road opinion (group gaps due to some mix of genetic and environmental factors). See the 4 quotations here. Deleet (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer_Marek reversed my edit here, while giving no justification on the talk page (or much in the edit comment "likewise, not much merit to this reversion"). Please explain your edit here, especially with regards to the sources I listed. Deleet (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, is the point of contention "some" vs. "considerable"? We should narrow down the dispute as much as possible. I feel that, in either case, we're better off keeping the lead as cautiously-worded as we can on this point given the complexity of the dispute and the unwillingness of several sources to make concrete statements. "Some" is definitely accurate, while 'considerable' feels like a bit of a WP:PEACOCK term that risks overstating the sources. The other parts that were removed in the edit you reverted serve to narrow down the focus of the dispute to the key point (what causes differences in test results), without the risk of presenting them in a way that implies that they are definitely meaningful in any one particular way, a position most credible sources seem reluctant to take. --Aquillion (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the debate is over some vs. considerable. Well, my review of all major textbooks as well as survey evidence is in line with considerable, not a mere some. The mean estimate among experts for genetic causation is ~50% in both surveys. One textbook (Hunt) wrote:
Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett’s extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true. However, the 100% environmental hypothesis is something of a stalking horse. Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say, 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences. The real issue is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one.
[...]
This summary will probably not satisfy those who have taken strong stands on either side of the debate over racial and ethnic differences in intelligence. Bold hypotheses “rally the troops” and make great entrees for television talk shows. People who take intermediate positions are said to be “wishywashy” or “afraid to say what they really think.” Nevertheless, the issue is complex, and oversimplifications do not help. There are group differences in intelligence, they are important, and there are both scientific and social reasons for trying to understand them. Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental contributions to differences in intelligence. The evidence required to quantify the relative sizes of these contributions to group differences is lacking. The relative sizes of environmental and genetic influences will vary over time and place. Some of these influences may be amenable to change, while others will be resistant to change. The relevant questions can be studied. Denials or overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side do not move the debate forward. They generate heat rather than light. (p. 435)
I think this shows that he considers the question to be open, i.e. not settled, as well as uncertain and of major debate, with moderate positions (e.g. 50-50) being more plausible (Hunt in general is quite moderate on most questions). Deleet (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Jensen note in lead

The lead reads:

The debate reemerged again in 1969, when Arthur Jensen championed the view that for genetic reasons Africans were less intelligent than whites and that compensatory education for African-American children was therefore doomed to be ineffective.

This is not correct. The Jensen 1969 article did not draw that inference, neither did it advance a particular genetic claim as such. By now the actual quote from the article is well-known, so I shall not repeat it yet again. Jensen 1969 advanced genetic factors as being a reasonable hypothesis as a contributory factor. I will edit the lead to be accurate. The following 1973 book, Educability and Group Differences, proposed a 50-75% between group heritability, which is similar to his later views (Jensen 1998, Rushton and Jensen 2005, 2010). Deleet (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on several points. The version you object to seems like an accurate summary of the key points of his work; while he didn't entirely rule out environmental factors, the key point (as literally every source we're citing on him agrees) was that he argued that genetic factors were preeminent and that this should drive public policy; that is, he "championed the view that for genetic reasons Africans were less intelligent", and that is a completely accurate summary of what the sources say about him. Pulling a quote from him out of context to make it sound like the controversy was over him saying that genetics were a "a reasonable hypothesis as a contributory factor" is absurd (and obviously WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, since you're trying to contradict the coverage of all secondary sources by performing your own interpretation on an arbitrary quote.) That is neither an accurate summary of what he was saying nor a remotely correct description of the nature of the controversy over his writings. --Aquillion (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aquillion. The quote is not out of context, it is the concluding sentence about causes of racial gaps in the paper. It is well-known and cited many places when this topic is discussed (e.g. Sesardic's 2005 book). Here's the full quote (entire paragraph):
The fact that a reasonable hypothesis has not been rigorously proved does not mean that it should be summarily dismissed. It only means that we need more appropriate research for putting it to the test. I believe such definitive research is entirely possible but has not yet been done. So all we are left with are various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference. The preponderance of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis, which, of course, does not exclude the influence of environment or its interaction with genetic factors. (p. 82)
I have read virtually every Jensen paper and every book (and most other works on the topic), so I am very familiar with the topic and do believe it is accurate (hence why I replaced the current version, which is not accurate). You are correct that some, indeed, many sources (mis)characterize his views (e.g. S. J. Gould's book). How does Wikipedia deal with a mixed secondary literature some of which contains strawmen and some of which don't? Which approach do you propose here? Deleet (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assertion that S. J. Gould mischaracterizes his work, and I feel that the quote you listed is accurately summarized in the current lead (when combined with his conclusions about what that meant, of course.) If you want to convince me otherwise, you will need secondary sources stating, explicitly, that Jensen was not a champion for the view that Africans were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons. In the quote above, he says but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference, which is unequivocally championing that view - it an unusual and fairly extreme view for which Jensen was the most prominent champion of his generation; and that position was the controversy that made him most notable. The fact that he conceded that there may also be some environmental factors is irrelevant; nothing in the article or in the sentence you object to implies otherwise, but we must focus on the actual point of controversy. Unless you can find secondary sources saying otherwise, Jensen being a "champion for the view that Africans were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons" seems to exactly summarize the important points of the quote you posted above. --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The scholarly opinion of Gould's work is quite low, see collection of quotes here. You misunderstand my point. The point is that Jensen (1969) was not a proponent of that view (he suggested it as a reasonable hypothesis, per the quote), and did not draw the invalid inference claimed in the lead. Jensen later on was a proponent of that view. Furthermore, it is not an unusual/extreme view, see the quotes from prominent secondary sources here. Additionally, there's two surveys of the matter, both finding Jensen's view to be mainstream. I am happy to note that Jensen suggested that hypothesis in 1969, but the part about the policy inference is not right and should be deleted. I also want to reiterate my question: what do you propose to do when non-researchers and researchers from other fields write secondary literature on a topic inconsistent with the primary source's own words? It would seem to be a common issue on contested topics where outsiders mischaracterize the views of their opponents. Deleet (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to questions about possible OR in your edit, which you have not addressed, and do not restore it to the article until there is a specific consensus here that there is not OR or SYNTHESIS, which are strictly forbidden. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are ducking the point. We are discussing a specific interpretation, which is well-cited in the article, yet which you are disputing with nothing more than what seems to me to be a misreading of a quote. I'm unimpressed with the handful of criticisms you dug up against Gould, but either way, if his conclusion here is as obviously inaccurate as you imply, it should be easy to find a source saying so specifically. If Gould had in fact mischaracterized Jensen as you implied, then it should be easy (given the intense and often heated debate that the topic attracts) to find someone pointing that out, rather than to rely on your own WP:OR as you're trying here. I would also advise that you delete that subpage; it's a useless mess of strung-together WP:SYNTH and cherry-picked quotations that is only going to weaken your arguments when you rely on it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&oldid=841191055"