Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Talk:Race and intelligence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS  · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

  • Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars ) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
  • Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
  • Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
  • Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
  • Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
  • Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
  • Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Do not feed the troll Do not feed the trolls !
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
Former good article nominee Race 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, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept
June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept
April 11, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept
February 24, 2020Deletion review Overturned
February 29, 2020Articles for deletion Kept
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject icon Psychology Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Anthropology Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject icon Sociology Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Skepticism Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Ethnic groups Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject icon Politics Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Culture Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Biology Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon Race and intelligence is part of the WikiProject Biology , an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Discrimination Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Media mention
Section sizes
Section size for Race and intelligence (31 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 2,619 2,619
History of the controversy 3,119 11,838
Early IQ testing 3,763 3,763
The Pioneer Fund and The Bell Curve 4,956 4,956
Conceptual issues 25 12,777
Intelligence and IQ 3,402 3,402
Race 9,350 9,350
Group differences 2,017 11,745
Test scores 6,616 6,616
Flynn effect and the closing gap 3,112 3,112
Environmental factors 26 28,726
Health and nutrition 8,895 8,895
Education 4,630 4,630
Socioeconomic environment 3,656 3,656
Test bias 2,671 2,671
Stereotype threat and minority status 8,848 8,848
Research into possible genetic factors 4,438 26,649
Genetics of race and intelligence 4,001 4,001
Heritability within and between groups 4,588 4,588
Spearman's hypothesis 3,826 3,826
Adoption studies 4,255 4,255
Racial admixture studies 2,450 2,450
Mental chronometry 1,939 1,939
Brain size 937 937
Archaeological data 215 215
Policy relevance and ethics 2,717 2,717
See also 142 142
References 18 50,123
Notes 28 28
Citations 31 31
Bibliography 50,046 50,046
Total 147,336 147,336
?  view · edit
Frequently asked questions
Is there really a scientific consensus that there is no evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence?
Yes, and for a number of reasons. Primarily:
Isn't it true that different races have different average IQ test scores?
On average and in certain contexts, yes, though these differences have fluctuated and in many cases steadily decreased over time. Crucially, the existence of such average differences today does not mean what racialists have asserted that it means (i.e. that races can be ranked according to their genetic predisposition for intelligence). Most IQ test data comes from North America and Europe, where non-White individuals represent ethnic minorities and often carry systemic burdens which are known to affect test performance. Studies which purport to compare the IQ averages of various nations are considered methodologically dubious and extremely unreliable. Further, important discoveries in the past several decades, such as the Flynn effect and the steady narrowing of the gap between low-scoring and high-scoring groups, as well as the ways in which disparities such as access to prenatal care and early childhood education affect IQ, have led to an understanding that environmental factors are sufficient to account for observed between-group differences.
And isn't IQ a measure of intelligence?
Not exactly. IQ tests are designed to measure intelligence, but it is widely acknowledged that they measure only a very limited range of an individual's cognitive capacity. They do not measure mental adaptability or creativity, for example. You can read more about the limitations of IQ measurements here. These caveats need to be kept in mind when extrapolating from IQ measurements to statements about intelligence. But even if we were to take IQ to be a measure of intelligence, there would still be no good reason to assert a genetic link between race and intelligence (for all the reasons stated elsewhere in this FAQ).
Isn't there research showing that there are genetic differences between races?
Yes and no. A geneticist could analyze a DNA sample and then in many cases make an accurate statement about that person's race, but no single gene or group of genes has ever been found that defines a person's race. Such variations make up a minute fraction of the total genome, less even than the amount of genetic material that varies from one individual to the next. It's also important to keep in mind that racial classifications are socially constructed, in the sense that how a person is classified racially depends on perceptions, racial definitions, and customs in their society and can often change when they travel to a different country or when social conventions change over time (see here for more details).
So how can different races look different, without having different genes?
They do have some different genes, but the genes that vary between any two given races will not necessarily vary between two other races. Race is defined phenotypically, not genotypically, which means it's defined by observable traits. When a geneticist looks at the genetic differences between two races, there are differences in the genes that regulate those traits, and that's it. So comparing Africans to Europeans will show differences in genes that regulate skin color, hair texture, nose and lip shape, and other observable traits. But the rest of the genetic code will be essentially the same. In fact, there is much less genetic material that regulates the traits used to define the races than there is that regulates traits that vary from person to person. In other words, if you compare the genomes of two individuals within the same race, the results will likely differ more from each other than a comparison of the average genomes of two races. If you've ever heard people saying that the races "are more alike than two random people" or words to that effect, this is what they were referring to.
Why do people insist that race is "biologically meaningless"?
Mostly because it is. As explained in the answer to the previous question, race isn't defined by genetics. Race is nothing but an arbitrary list of traits, because race is defined by observable features. The list isn't even consistent from one comparison to another. We distinguish between African and European people on the basis of skin color, but what about Middle Eastern, Asian, and Native American people? They all have more or less the same skin color. We distinguish African and Asian people from European people by the shape of some of their facial features, but what about Native American and Middle Eastern people? They have the same features as the European people, or close enough to engender confusion when skin color is not discernible. Australian Aborigines share numerous traits with African people and are frequently considered "Black" along with them, yet they are descended from an ancestral Asian population and have been a distinct cultural and ethnic group for fifty thousand years. These standards of division are arbitrary and capricious; the one drop rule shows that visible differences were not even respected at the time they were still in use.
But IQ is at least somewhat heritable. Doesn't that mean that observed differences in IQ test performance between ancestral population groups must have a genetic component?
This is a common misconception, sometimes termed the "hereditarian fallacy". [1] In fact, the heritability of differences between individuals and families within a given population group tells us nothing about the heritability of differences between population groups. [2] [3] As geneticist and neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell explains:

We need to get away from thinking about intelligence as if it were a trait like milk yield in a herd of cattle, controlled by a small, persistent and dedicated bunch of genetic variants that can be selectively bred into animals from one generation to the next. It is quite the opposite – thousands of variants affect intelligence, they are constantly changing, and they affect other traits. It is not impossible for natural selection to produce populations with differences in intelligence, but these factors make it highly unlikely.

To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What’s more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change. Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible.

The bottom line is this. While genetic variation may help to explain why one person is more intelligent than another, there are unlikely to be stable and systematic genetic differences that make one population more intelligent than the next. [4]

What about all the psychometricians who claim there's a genetic link?
The short answer is: they're not geneticists. The longer answer is that there remains a well-documented problem of scientific racism, which has infiltrated psychometry (see e.g. [5] and [6]). Psychometry is a field where people who advocate scientific racism can push racist ideas without being constantly contradicted by the very work they're doing. And when their data did contradict their racist views, many prominent advocates of scientific racism simply falsified their work or came up with creative ways to explain away the problems. See such figures as Cyril Burt, J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Hans Eysenck, who are best known in the scientific community today for the poor methodological quality of their work, their strong advocacy for a genetic link between race and intelligence, and in some cases getting away with blatant fraud for many years.
Isn't it a conspiracy theory to claim that psychometricians do this?
No. It is a well-documented fact that there is an organized group of psychometricians pushing for mainstream acceptance of racist, unscientific claims. See this, this and this, as well as our article on scientific racism for more information.
Isn't this just political correctness?
No, it's science. As a group of scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina explain: "while it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed". These authors compare proponents of a genetic link between race and IQ to creationists, vaccine skeptics, and climate change deniers. [7] At the same time, researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so, as is made clear by this article: [8]. It's just that all the evidence they find points to environmental rather than genetic causes for observed differences in average IQ-test performance between racial groups.
What about the surveys which say that most "intelligence experts" believe in some degree of genetic linkage between race and IQ?
  • These surveys are almost invariably conducted by advocates of scientific racism, and respondents to these surveys are also almost exclusively members of groups that promote scientific racism. In short, they are not representative samples of mainstream scientific opinion.
  • These surveys tend to have very low participation rates, and often consist of fewer than 100 respondents.
  • Many of the surveys suffer from methodological flaws, such as using leading questions. This leads to an increase in responses from those who agree, and a decrease from those who disagree.
  • Generally speaking, the better the methodology of the survey, the lower agreement it shows with the claim of a genetic link between race and intelligence.
  • Even the most poorly structured surveys, conducted among members of groups that are dominated by advocates for scientific racism, show much doubt and difference of opinion among respondents.
  • The vast majority of respondents have absolutely no qualifications to speak on genetics.
Is there really no evidence at all for a genetic link between race and intelligence?
No evidence for such a link has ever been presented in the scientific community. Much data has been claimed to be evidence by advocates of scientific racism, but each of these claims has been universally rejected by geneticists. Statistical arguments claiming to detect the signal of such a difference in polygenic scores have been refuted as fundamentally methodologically flawed (see e.g. [9]), and neither genetics nor neuroscience are anywhere near the point where a mechanistic explanation could even be meaningfully proposed (see e.g. [10]). This is why the question of a genetic link between race and intelligence is largely considered pseudoscience; it is assumed to exist primarily by advocates of scientific racism, and in these cases the belief is based on nothing but preconceived notions about race.
What is the current state of the science on a link between intelligence and race?
Please see the article itself for an outline of the scientific consensus.
What is the basis for Wikipedia's consensus on how to treat the material?
Wikipedia editors have considered this topic in detail and over an extended period. In short, mainstream science treats the claim that genetics explains the observable differences in IQ between races as a fringe theory, so we use our own guidelines on how to treat such material when editing our articles on the subject. Please refer to the following past discussions:

Piffer (2015)

Piffer (2015) found differing frequencies of cognition and IQ-enhancing genes in different racial populations:

https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2015-piffer.pdf

Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

See Intelligence (journal) for some well-sourced commentary on the merits of that particular publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
The criticism appears to be sourced to a journalistic piece in a progressive political magazine and another in a pop-sci magazine. 'Well-sourced commentary' such as this doesn't weigh heavily when it comes to a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
'Highly regarded' went out the window when they had white supremacists on the editorial board. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Even the two critical sources stated describe it as 'one of the most respected in its field' and 'a more respected psychology journal'.
If any experts in the field of intelligence research have made a case against the journal's reputation, then its reliability could be questioned. As it is we have mixed criticism from two journalists of a well regarded peer-reviewed publication. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Nah. We can discard a source without needing to meet your personal standard, which doesn't have any relation to Wikipedia's policies so far as I can tell. It is worth mentioning, though, that the SPLC (noted experts on racism) published an article that spends multiple paragraphs on this specific paper and how it shouldn't be used as a source. A sample quote: Piffer’s credentials, affiliations and the scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect - MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Based on which Wiki policy are you discarding it as a source? It's used several times in articles related to intelligence research.
Not than an advocacy organization's opinion really is of note when it comes to population genetics, I do note that these several SPLC paragraphs go into no more detail than to state that scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect (no reasons for this assessment or counterarguments given, at all), to question the author's credibility and to state that there are no reliable sources to dispute it. Which adds up to nothing in particular from an organisation with absolutely no standing in scientific matters. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
If this Piffer article is used several times, please point those usages out specifically because those definitely need to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
As per my original comment and your response to it, I'm referring to the journal Intelligence. Which seems to have somehow achieved the status of a 'pick-and-choose' source.
The argument against mention of the Piffer paper, whether it's flawed research or not, requires something more than commentary from a civil rights organisation. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Contrary to what you might imagine, we rely on editor judgement for evaluating source reliability all the time, and Piffer is definitely a fringe source per our guideline. This would be ascertainable even without explicit debunking in a scholarly source. Some pseudo-scholars are too insignificant to draw that kind of attention. That said, here is a fine peer-reviewed source that explains in no uncertain terms what is so profoundly unscientific about Piffer's methodology. No matter how you squirm, you will get nowhere with this line of argumentation. Generalrelative (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
A preprint is not a fine peer-reviewed anything.
Our guideline places Piffer as a fringe source based on his conclusions, or is it his associations?
I'm aware that a past RFC prematurely declared the suggestion that genetics plays a role in population group IQ differences to be 'fringe' rather than merely minority. As RFCs aren't binding and consensus can change at any time, hopefully this will be rectified at some point. Though a consensus against it is emerging, the idea hasn't been conclusively refuted and research is ongoing. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
The author of that paper is Kevin Bird. Kevin Bird also said: "The past isn't an indication of how the future behaves...I do science because I find it intellectually engaging, to be completely honest...I do it with not as much interest in attaining or discovering truth." He then said that he is "not interested in discovering truth". It is completely impossible to take a person like that seriously. And that paper's not peer reviewed. Hi! (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Bird et al. has now been published by American Psychologist , the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association. It is no longer a preprint. As to your gotcha quote about "truth"... Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Thanks for the updated cite. But an Indiana Jones meme? What am I supposed to take away from that? Hi! (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
That your attempt to smear Bird is thoroughly unconvincing. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
The SPLC aren't experts on genetics, and they don't cite any scientific publications in their article to critique Piffer. The closest they come is citing a non-peer-reviewed book review of a book Piffer didn't write. Hi! (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
The SPLC may be experts on racism, but is there any evidence that they're experts on science? Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Correctly identifying racist pseudoscience is part of their expertise, yes. It's not like they're commenting on an article about astronomy. MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Pseudoscience is that which does not employ the scientific method. Neither the SPLC nor Bird have made such an extreme claim about the Piffer paper. Bird may have the expertise to critique the methodology employed, but anything of the sort is well beyond the SPLC's realm of expertise. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Please also read OpenPsych concerning the journal co-founded by Davide Piffer. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Anyone around who can check recent edits for Richard Lynn?

[11] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Genome-wide association study recent changes

Editors who follow this page will probably take an interest in recent edits over at Genome-wide association study. MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And, a bit more distantly, Talk:Gynoid fat distribution#Gynoid fat and skeletons. --JMF (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Introduction is inflammatory

I will gloss over the 1st paragraph for now - who in the world wrote the second paragraph? Were they trying to be as inflammatory and biased as possible?

This is ridiculous and must be fixed. Opinions? Epifanove 🗯️ 23:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I suppose one might say it is biased against scientific racism, but that is inevitable since scientific racism is a discredited concept. WP:YWAB is relevant. MrOllie (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"no evidence for a genetic component"

The article still states: "The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups", with nine(!) sources supposedly supporting this claim. Why do we need nine distinct sources to support such a claim? Is it perhaps because the phrase "no evidence" is inherently and intentionally misleading? Because there is in fact an abundance of evidence for a genetic component, but it simply gets dismissed as fringe, aka "bad" science.

'Saying there is ‘no evidence’ of something isn’t not lazy or bad science reporting (or other talk). It is definitely both of those, but that is not what it centrally is. No evidence is a magic phrase used to intentionally manipulate understanding by using a motte and bailey between ‘this is false’ and statements of the form ‘this has not been proven using properly peer reviewed randomized controlled trials with p less than 0.05.’ It makes one sound Responsible and Scientific in contrast to those who update their beliefs based on the information they acquire, no matter the source.

...

This is not an ‘honest’ mistake. This is a systematic anti-epistemic superweapon engineered to control what people are allowed and not allowed to think based on social power, in direct opposition to any and all attempts to actually understand and model the world and know things based on one’s information. Anyone wielding it should be treated accordingly.[12]

Stonkaments (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's cliche to say at this point, but it's still true: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and where is this evidence of a genetic component? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
1) That's a popular aphorism, not Wikipedia policy.
2) In fact, the extraordinary claim here is that no evidence of a genetic component exists. What is the evidence that supports that claim?
3) As requested, here is a sampling of the evidence of a genetic component:[13] [14] [15]. You may not like it, you may call it "fringe", but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Stonkaments (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I'm not denying that this kind of research exists, just the claim that there's any actual proof of the differences being genetic seems dubious. Indeed, citing the likes of Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, and Emil Kirkegaard for your evidence isn't gonna convince anyone here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
All of the sources with excerpts in the notes do not say that there is no evidence. They say that there is scientific consensus that racial IQ differences are not genetic, and one says polemically that no relevant genes have ever been identified. You should read the sources and change the prose to match what they say, because from what I see, no source goes so far as to say that there is "no evidence" for a genetic component to the differences. ꧁Zanahary ꧂ 09:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I've gone ahead and done so. ꧁Zanahary ꧂ 09:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
@LokiTheLiar has reverted me, saying that the sources were better reflected by the "no evidence" phrasing. Loki, do any of these sources actually say that there is no evidence for a genetic component? ꧁Zanahary ꧂ 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Gathered quotations in order of cite anchors:
1. "Recent articles claim that the folk categories of race are genetically meaningful divisions, and that evolved genetic differences among races and nations are important for explaining immutable differences in cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, sexual behavior, and wealth; all claims that are opposed by a strong scientific consensus to the contrary".
2. "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence, most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences".
3. "It is worth remembering that no genes related to difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now."
4. Waiting for access to this one.
5. I don't really know how to excerpt this one, but it's an argument that racial IQ gaps are environmental based on test scores, not a holistic evaluation of evidence, and says nothing like "there is no evidence" for a genetic component.
6. As there remains no way to gather evidence that would permit the direct refutation of the environmental hypotheses, and no direct evidence for the hereditarian position, it remains the case, I argue, that the hereditarian position is unsupported by current evidence.
7. "[T]he claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new)."
8. Don't know how to excerpt this either, but it's a counter to a specific racial argument by a scientist named Jensen, and never says anything like the statement in prose that it ostensibly supports.
9. 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.To me, these sources can be taken to support prose that says the scientific consensus is against a genetic explanation for racial IQ gaps, or that the genetic thesis is unsupported by evidence—but not one says there is "no evidence". ꧁Zanahary ꧂ 18:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I agree with Zanahary here. His suggested language is clearer and just as consistent with the sources. The "no evidence" language was reflective of a time when it was difficult to get stable text in place because of persistent disruption in the topic area. The more recent sources in particular, esp. Bird et al., are more emphatic that the hereditarian hypothesis is flatly false. Generalrelative (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
My interpretation of Zanahary's edit is that he thinks the sourcing is insufficient (it's not) and is trying to weaken the wording as a result. I see you interpret the resulting wording as actually stronger, which I disagree with: if I wanted to strengthen it I would say that there is no genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups, not merely that IQ differences between racial groups cannot be attributed to genetic factors. That sounds weasel-y to me: attributed by who? It's not a matter of attribution, it's a matter of facts. Loki (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The sourcing is definitely insufficient to say "there is no evidence", because no source says that. I’m not trying to weaken wording, I’m trying to reflect sources, which generally say that the scientific consensus is environmental and the genetic thesis is unsupported by evidence. ꧁Zanahary ꧂ 21:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
This conversation has been had many times before and the consensus has always been that "the genetic thesis is unsupported by evidence" = "there is no evidence". But I also think that your wording is more to-the-point and clearer to the reader. I don't get a weasely vibe from it, but I also respect Loki's intuitions a great deal, so I'm open to being persuaded. It might just be a matter of differing perspectives. Generalrelative (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
#4 Mackintosh 2001 is available at archive. Conclusion has: One could reasonably defend Nisbett's[citing [16]] argument that the gap was entirely environmental in origin.[speaking to test score gap] But it would probably be even more reasonable to acknowledge that the evidence is simply not sufficient to provide a definitive answer one way or the other—and possibly never will be. fiveby(zero) 20:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Thank you! This would support text saying the thesis is unsupported by evidence. ꧁Zanahary ꧂ 21:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I like: Turkheimer E. (2024). "IQ, Race, and Genetics". Understanding the Nature‒Nurture Debate. Understanding Life. Cambridge University Press. pp. 132–147. Would not really support either way as a citation concerning "evidence" ("half-baked evidence", "no evidence worth pursuing") but worth reading i think. fiveby(zero) 21:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The reason one of the sources is "polemical" is that it's a cherry picked quote. A much more representative, explicit quote (p. 436, the conclusion of the " Biological Causes for Racial and Ethnic Differences" section):
"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.
And this is what I really believe!" Hi! (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
available at archive btw https://archive.org/details/EarlHuntHumanIntelligence2010/page/n452/mode/1up Hi! (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /