Talk:Race and intelligence

Capitalization of 'white' and 'black'

This page is currently inconsistent regarding the capitalization of the words 'white' and 'black.' Does anyone else care about this, or have any ideas about whether the words should be capitalized or not if we make it consistent? If found this: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/language_corner_1.php. Let me know if anyone else cares about this. Carlsonaar (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

They should NOT be capitalized. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Now fixed and consistent. I have no idea what the justification was but it isn't proper English, which is why they have all been removed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobel prize winner James Watson

Now that Nobel prize laureate James Watson has come forward decidedly in favor of this, you have to mention him and change "there remains some debate" to "the issue is the subject of ongoing debate" or similar.

Come on wikipedia, show that you are actually neutral and unbiased. This is the lithmus-test of neutrality, because the issue is so full of anger and hatred. Here is just a Nobel laureate, with a scientific opinion, and then all the world throws hate at him. His comments just lift the lid placed over this huge taboo. Wikipedia can either allow uncomfortable positions a neutral and fair treatment, or it can let emotion win over science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.87.244.164 (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates have a history of losing their minds. The Curies endorsed psychics, Alexis Carrel became a Nazi collaborator, and Linus Pauling decided Vitamin C cured everything. It's called 'Nobel disease', and it is quite well known. Sumanuil (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Um, the same guy who was just stripped of his various honors? [1] EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources rather than original research. Until reliable sources begin characterizing the debate as "ongoing" due to James Watson, we cannot just change it on our own. Leugen9001 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you guys joking? His request is absolutely reasonable. Your responses are awful; using "Nobel disease" as a reason to dismiss his request and pointing to something that is more political than scientific like Watson being stripped of his honours is below all critique. 31.208.27.41 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

His views seem notable because he is a nobel prize winner not because he shows any expertise in the field. Unless we have high-quality sourcers seriously discussing his ideas, as opposed to calling them out as racist etc, inclusion should not happen. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, Francis Crick (the other DNA discoverer) also seems to have endorsed this view privately as shown in these letters. Deleet (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Imagine coming to this article, which is full of "high-quality sourcers seriously discussing his ideas", not knowing this, then commenting based on the fact that you know exactly nothing about the subject. Imagine being that kind of person. 82.10.143.238 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresented source

On Dec. 31, KingBoru made [2] this edit, cited to the Handbook of Psychology by John R. Graham and Jack A Naglieri. However, this source seems to have been misrepresented. The source does not take a strong position for or against IQ tests being culturally biased, but is generally critical of the view that group differences must be due to cultural bias. Here's a quote from the page of the book that's being cited (p. 58):

The belief that any group test score difference constitutes bias has been termed the egalitarian fallacy by Jensen (1980, p. 370):

This concept of test bias is based on the gratuitous assumption that all human populations are essentially identical or equal in whatever trait or ability the test purports to measure. Therefore, any difference between populations in the distribution of test scores (such as a difference in means, or standard deviations, or any other parameters of the distribution) is taken as evidence that the test is biased. The search for a less biased test, then, is guided by the criterion of minimizing or eliminating the statistical differences between groups. The perfectly nonbiased test, according to this definition, would reveal reliable individual differences but not reliable (i.e., statistically significant) group differences. (p. 370)

However this controversy is viewed, the perception of test bias stemming from group mean score differences remains a deeply ingrained belief among many psychologists and educators. McArdle (1998) suggests that large group mean score differences are “a necessary but not sufficient condition for test bias” (p. 158). McAllister (1993) has observed, “In the testing community, differences in correct answer rates, total scores, and so on do not mean bias. In the political realm, the exact opposite perception is found; differences mean bias” (p. 394).

This source does not support KingBoru's edit: "critics largely [believe] that the Intelligence Quotient itself has inherent biases, and thus that differences are due to a cultural bias." What the source actually says is that there are varying views on whether IQ tests are biased, but the prevailing view among intelligence researchers is that differences do not mean bias. Since this edit misrepresents the source it's citing, I suggest that it should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:B1C5:9930:DB87:DB26 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Kingboru has added this material twice before, first with no source, and next with an unreliable source (a study.com video). Now back again with a new source, but it's used incorrectly (I was wondering about it when I saw the edit, but didn't check it out, I guess I should have). I'll revert it again for now. Deleet (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition of two sources, re-ordering of Environmental Influences subsections

My changes were to the Environmental Influences section were reverted "so that I [@Flyer22 Reborn:] can look at this material."

To make this review process easier ... there was a long list of small edits, so here is an overall a summary of my changes:

1. The biggest change was a zero-byte "minor" change. I re-sorted the sub-sections so they started on the most objective/mathematically measured causes, like nutrition, and ended with the most speculative/hard-to-measure (i.e. no explicitly measured correlation) at the bottom. The Environmental Influences section had previously started with the weakest, most controversial evidence, and this struck me as deliberately prejudicial. A person skimming, rather than reading all the way through a very long article, would never get to the strong and generally accepted evidence, backed up by hard numbers. They would likely start at the top of the section, see only the weakest and most subjective evidence for environmental impacts on IQ, and skip to the next section without ever seeing the strong evidence on the subject. My other changes were as follows:

2. I added one secondary source, from U.S. Department for Health and Human Services medical training materials intended for pediatricians. I referenced it based on the following quotation: "Lead poisoning is found disproportionately among black and Hispanic children exposed to lead-containing dust found in older, dilapidated housing. New immigrants and migrant families are more likely to live in low-cost, hazardous housing." In context of the wiki article, it was used as follows: "childhood exposure to lead, associated with homes in poorer areas causes an average 4-6 point IQ drop," The primary DHHS page is here: [3] Upon review, it links to a more recent version of the same training materials, here [4]. The new version shows the same link between poverty, race, and lead exposure, but doesn't have the same exact quotation.

3. I re-referenced an existing in-page primary source on blood levels of lead in children, specifically this one: [5]

4. I added another primary reference to support the existing primary reference on blood levels of lead, here: [6]. In context it was used as follows: "childhood exposure to lead, associated with homes in poorer areas, causes an average 4-6 point IQ drop,

5. I clarified the section tagged to make it clear what direction the associations were (for example, rather than "breastfeeding" being associated with low IQ, I changed it to say "low rates of breastfeeding." Instead of "lead" being associated with low IQ, I changed it to say "lead exposure". Instead of "nutrition" being associated with low IQ, I changed it to say "poor nutrition." JDowning (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2019‎ (UTC)

Okay, JDowning. Except for the primary sources you added, I'm generally okay with the changes you made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding primary sources on lead which do not investigate its role in race/IQ is WP:SYNTHESIS 81.155.56.66 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I left out the new primary source when making the edits, as discussed above. Although the primary source was directly relevant, it was still a primary source when better, secondary sources were available. I later found this[7] Open-Access review article, which found an average (but highly dose-dependent) 6.9 IQ point drop with environmental lead exposure. The journal is published by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and has a high impact factor,[8] so I am going to go ahead and add the reference now. JDowning (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

JDowning, per what is stated in the discussion seen here at Talk:Child abuse, make sure that you don't confuse what a review is. Also, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not all journals are created equal. Certain journals are more reliable than others. Some are not reliable at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn As above, I checked the impact factor with the SciMago Journal Rank (Q1)[9], and the journal is directly published by the US agency in charge of environmental hazards (full title: U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services). The article had 14 different authors, all working for reputable organizations (universities, hospitals, multiple national institutes of health). The specific article pooled and compared the data from seven international population-based longitudinal cohort studies, by working with the authors of the original studies to obtain the original data sets. They also compared the study methodology. Overall this is much more in-depth than a surface comparison of literature, and I would consider it a review.

I do not understand your specific objection to this specific paper, especially in terms of reliability of the source. Additionally, environmental lead exposure causing an IQ drop is accepted science. Lead is a strong, brain-damaging neurotoxin; I've not come across a single paper claiming otherwise.

I understand this is a very controversial article, but you are the one and only editor to object to my sourcing in 13 years of editing wikipedia. Objecting to a Q1-journal article directly published by the NIH based on 'reliability' is ... I don't know what to say.

I agree I made a poorly-sourced addition to Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation last week, which is why I didn't complain when you reverted it. After your reversion, I realized I had mis-read at least once of the referenced sources; I agree it was a terrible addition and needed deletion. I've been more thoroughly reading sources since then. Let's move on, please.

JDowning, I did not state that I object to that source. I am informing you of how sourcing works for medical and psychology articles here at Wikipedia. Psychology articles are also an aspect of the medical field. I am also pointing you to how we should generally source any academic topic. New editors confuse what literature reviews are time and time again. They are also prone to using poor journals. So are editors who usually do not edit these types of articles. You have not been consistently editing medical and psychology articles for thirteen years. By this, I mean that, looking at your contribution history and seeing that you have been focused on other types of topics at times, you have had significant gaps in your editing. For example, you edited a bit in 2009, didn't return until 2012 and edited a bit in 2012. If you had been consistently editing these types of articles even for five years (and I don't mean toxicity type of articles or gene articles), you would have come across editors like me. And by that, I mean WP:Med editors. You recently edited the P-glycoprotein article. Our medical editors usually are not at those kinds of articles. But as you can see from this edit, one of our former medical editors (who is currently no longer with us) took an interest in that article. He would have appreciated this systematic review you added to it. I appreciate it as well. Thank you. I don't mean to come across as someone inhibiting your work. I just want you to edit well. You haven't discussed matters on talk pages a lot, which speaks to you not being as familiar with this site's rules and protocols as more experienced Wikipedia editors are. Just because an edit has not been objected to does not mean that it's a good edit. If you did not read the discussion I pointed you to above, I suggest you read it. I suspect it will be a good idea to address one or more of your edits at WP:Med in the future. You say "let's move on, please.", but I'm not stuck on past edits you have made. You are showing up to articles that are on my watchlist. And some of your latest edits indicate to me that you would benefit from some WP:Med guidance. Until then, yes, we can move on. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. And WP:Pings only work with a fresh signature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn, I apologize for taking fair criticism personally, and thank you. JDowning (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

___

References

The role of test bias

Aquillion deleted a paragraph summarizing the role of test bias in score differences. Edit summary is "Trimming the second paragraph of this section; note that the date of the 'rebuttal' is earlier than any of the citations in the first paragraph, which makes this construction (using it as a response to later scholarship) absurd. Only the 2011 refs for Hunt and Mackintosh are really useful here, but we lack cites to them.". I think a more sensible approach here would be to look for more sources as well as the specific pages in the books in question. I believe both of these books have recently been put online on LibGen, so one can consult them there. Furthermore, there are many sources since the ones cited before. Here's some examples: http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Sackett,%20Borneman,%20&%20Connelly%20(2008).%20AP.pdf, https://books.google.com/books?id=EcsaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT328#v=onepage&q&f=false, https://books.google.com/books?id=4fmnDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false. Finally, it is not true that all the sources in the above paragraph are newer, there's 3 older ones (1983, 1988, 1988, i.e. all before 1996 APA piece). Deleet (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Either way, it is inappropriate for us to put such WP:UNDUE weight on the AMA piece - we fold four sources (Cronshaw, Verney, Borsboom, and Shuttleworth-Edwards, all dating to after it) into one sentence, then give the AMA piece almost an entire paragraph to "reply" to them despite being published earlier. Obviously it needs to be trimmed down to give it weight comparable to the individual studies cited in the first paragraph. I was going to re-add it with the appropriate weight, but on re-reading it I realized that it's being misused in any case - it is specific that it talks about the tests being unbiased in the sense of predicting educational attainment (From an educational point of view, the chief function of mental tests is as predictors, and, further in the same section, Considered in this light, the question is whether the tests have a "predictive bias" against blacks.) You have to read the entire paper, not just one "clobber-text" line; the section that is summarized in the conclusion, and which serves as the sentence for that cite, is based on that paragraph, and therefore refers to them being unbiased only in the sense that they do in fact accurately predict educational attainment. Indeed (and this was the most alarming thing to me when I read it), another section in the same paper, further up, clarifies that cultural differences may indeed result in different test outcomes - it's not disagreeing with most of the first sentence (they even acknowledge in the paragraph you quoted that cultural differences may be the cause of the the disparity; they noted only that the tests are 'unbiased' in the sense of producing unbiased predictions of future educational attainment, which is a far, far more limited statement than the implication the previous text had - ie. that the tests provided an unbiased assessment of hypothetical general intelligence.) Also, I'll note that the cites you provided above say essentially the same things - that tests are accurate for the purpose of predicting future success. We have to be extremely cautious to make that distinction clear when citing such sources. Those authors are much more careful in their wording, in other words, than you are being here; we have to reflect their caution. I think for now the best thing to do is to rewrite the relevant sentence into "the tests do accurately predict future educational attainment" and avoid making broad statements outside of that. In that sense there isn't actually a conflict between the two sets of sources (which is, again, part of the problem with the previous framing, which tried to use the AMA paper to cast doubt on the sources in the first paragraph, when in fact there's little disagreement between them outside of the fact that the AMA paper, which was older, noting that the role of cultural differences hadn't been fully studied yet - something that can obviously be chalked up to its age.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no conflict between the idea that the tests are an accurate measure of general intelligence and the idea that group differences may be the result of culture. General intelligence isn't 100% genetically determined, so it's possible for both of those things to be true. Earl Hunt's 2011 book (p.425) says, "The differences in test scores across racial/ethnic groups almost certainly reflect a real difference in the distribution of cognitive skills across racial/ethnic lines", and the book then describes several possible social causes of the differences (as well as possible biological causes). In this context, "unbiased" means that the tests accurately measure what they're designed to measure, without saying anything about the underlying cause of the differences.

The 2008 Sackett paper (authored by a mainstream academic, published in a reputable APA journal and well-cited) doesn't directly address the question of whether the tests are measuring a real difference in general intelligence, but it's using the term "unbiased" to mean more than just the extremely narrow conclusion you've described. The paper's conclusions are summarized in this paragraph:

We offer a very positive appraisal of the evidence (a) that tests of developed abilities are generally valid for their intended uses in predicting a wide variety of aspects of short-term and long-term academic and job performance, (b) that validity is not an artifact of SES, (c) that coaching is not a major determinant of test performance, (d) that tests do not generally exhibit bias by underpredicting the performance of minority group members, and (e) that testtaking motivational mechanisms are not major determinants of test performance in these high-stakes settings.

This paper provides a useful summary of what the mainstream position is with respect to test bias, so I think this paper's conclusions should be included in the article.

I disagree about the prominence that should be given to the APA piece. This summary is considered very authoritative by researchers and the citation statistics show it: it has 3.4k citations on Google Scholar. I don't think it is undue to rely heavily on this source despite its age. I recognize the conflict here between WP:RS_AGE and relying on authoritative, academic secondary sources. Nevertheless, modern textbooks, such as Hunt 2011 above, offer about the same view as found in the APA statement. On this topic, it is possible to find recent papers by various scientists (many outside the field) saying just about anything one wants. To avoid an incoherent article, it is important to stick to the most authoritative sources, which are well regarded reviews and textbooks by mainstream academics published by reputable university presses. Deleet (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing you said here refutes Aquillon's points. In fact, nothing you said here even addresses their main point, which is that the validity of tests for performance says nothing about whether or not the tests are biased because it doesn't address whether or not the real world performance is influenced by the same or similar biases. The Sackett paper (actual, working link to it is here) is clear on this distinction:

Note that the magnitude of group differences on the test and the magnitude of group differences on the measure of performance are not the same (e.g., White–Black test d = 1.0; White–Black job performance d = 0.35). An intuitive notion may be that the two should be the same and the fact that they are not signals bias in the test. We note that there is generally no reason to expect the two to be comparable unless the test in question is the sole determinant of the outcome of interest. (emphasis added)

So any suggestion that the Sackett source argues that such tests are unbiased in a general sense is obviously spurious; they are only unbiased in the sense of their being a strong-but-not-perfect correlation between predicted performance and actual performance regardless of minority status.

And we are already aware that Hunt thinks test scores are unbiased; he was the president of ISIR, the ornate gazebo smack in the middle of the walled garden of "scientific" racism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the point Sackett is making in the part you quoted. That paragraph is saying that group differences in job performance are smaller than group differences in IQ, because job performance is influenced by many other factors besides intelligence (such as motivation, personality factors, etc). This paragraph has nothing to do with whether IQ tests underestimate the real cognitive ability of minority test takers. Sackett is quite clear on this point; his paper also states that "(the assertion) that these mean differences can be interpreted as evidence of bias in the tests [...] is unequivocally rejected within mainstream psychology.".

As a more general point, maybe re-read the WP:RS policy. Earl Hunt's textbook is widely considered one of the best books available about human intelligence (see e.g. this paper). Last year, when I cited several sources to demonstrate what the mainstream opinion is, you rejected the textbook sources because these books didn't cost enough. You rather strangely said, "Look at how cheap those "textbooks" are (ever seen a college textbook under $180?)" Note policy in Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources. I also suggest you moderate your language. Calling stuff you dislike bad names (what even is "ornate gazebo smack"??) is not proper discussion etiquette on Wikipedia.

To recap the usual policy: articles like this one should be based on authoritative academic sources such as the Sackett paper, Hunt's textbook, the APA report, Gottfredson's mainstream statement, and survey results of researchers. All of these indicate about the same thing in this case. Deleet (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I know what the authors were discussing, and in the discussion of the expected vs. actual delta the authors happened to make a reference to the general sense of the tests being biased, wherein they note that the only reason to expect job performance to correlate strongly to test performance is when one discounts the job performance measurement entirely and apply the test results to both measures. The only reason that doing that is a bad idea is the knowledge -common to the authors, the intended audience and most editors here who can read these sorts of papers properly- that whether or not the tests themselves are biased says nothing about whether other measures of intelligence are biased.

At no point does the paper come to the conclusion that the tests are entirely free from bias, and it is statements like this, scattered throughout the paper which explain why. This has been explained to you twice now, by two different editors. The problem has nothing to do with the reliability of the source, it's your interpretation of the source. It's saying "These particular proposed mechanisms of bias are untenable because [insert reason here]," and you're trying to make it say "All proposed mechanisms of bias are untenable because these few are." Learning to read and understand the deliberate and overt specificity of statements in a mainstream science publication is someone you have to do if you want to understand them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@MPants You have grossly misunderstood Sackett et al's paper. They were in fact conveying the opposite of what you think, which is to say they believe the tests are unbiased based on the preponderance of evidence. The paper is a response to specific assertions commonly made by those claiming the tests are biased, explaining how large-scale studies and meta-analyses do not support these assertions. They note this explicitly in the introduction and discussion sections of the paper.

The reason they highlighted the magnitude of group differences on the test and in performance not being the same, was to dismantle criticisms that arise from the observance of this difference. They explain how observing a difference between the test and criterion does not signal test bias, as there's no reason to expect the two to be comparable unless the test in question is the sole determinant of the outcome. This is why the part you quoted is under "Assertion 7: Minority group performance matches majority group performance" (it was an assertion they were addressing).

Another of the assertions that they address is this one: "Lower minority group mean scores show that tests are biased". This is the assertion that they are saying is rejected by mainstream psychology. In other words, they are saying that the preponderance of evidence indicates that test bias is not an adequate explanation for group differences in average scores. 2601:42:800:A9DB:3065:EEA1:68A0:2F32 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake, why do people who don't know how to read a scientific article insist upon reading scientific articles? I've already explained that the paper nowhere comes to the conclusion that the tests are unbiased, full stop. If either of you had any real competence reading scientific papers you'd grasp the importance of this. This article responds to 8 specific arguments which were "current in the literature" (those scare quotes are there because none of those arguments appear in academic literature in the recent past, they're merely the straw men that get parroted in pop-science literature and political discourse) at the time of it's publication. It does not respond to all arguments, and indeed, only responds to one argument directly alleging test bias, and that's not an argument which is presented in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No one has implied there aren't other arguments, or that the paper addressed every argument. However to say "the paper nowhere comes to the conclusion that the tests are unbiased, full stop" is a bit misleading as the authors conclude with this:

While each of these assertions, if true, would constitute a serious challenge to the continued use of such tests, our conclusion is that none of them are supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

...We offer a very positive appraisal of the evidence (a)that tests of developed abilities are generally valid for their intended uses in predicting a wide variety of aspects of short-term and long-term academic and job performance

So, while they aren't saying the tests are without a doubt unbiased, they are saying there is no evidence to support they are. In any case, I think most would agree it's fair to use this source in the test bias subsection to support the claim that test bias isn't an adequate explanation for group differences. 2601:42:800:A9DB:90D:CB64:5302:7138 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

they are saying there is no evidence to support they are No, they aren't. They are saying that "...tests of developed abilities are generally valid for their intended uses in predicting a wide variety of aspects of short-term and long-term academic and job performance".

As I've already pointed out; valid != unbiased should be something that anyone reading this sort of paper understands on a fundamental level. If you don't understand that, then you have no business discussing this subject. In addition, the paper nowhere addresses the issue of the metrics by which "short-term and long-term academic and job performance" are gauged and whether or not those are biased, and I earlier provided a quote where they specifically acknowledge that there are factors influencing such metrics by way of pointing out that the only reason to espect a 1-1 correlation between IQ testing and later performance is if the IQ test is used as a gauge of performance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that anyone who starts their posts with "Oh, for f**k's sake" probably isn't winning the argument. ---Asteuartw (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Excessive detail of debate in summary section?

The summary of 'Environmental influences on group differences in IQ' strikes me as overly detailed--it has a blow-by-blow description of an academic debate. I propose shortening, as follows:

The following environmental factors are some of those suggested as explaining a portion of the differences in average IQ between races. These factors are not mutually exclusive with one another, and some may, in fact, contribute directly to others. Furthermore, the relationship between genetics and environmental factors may be complicated. For example, the differences in socioeconomic environment for a child may be due to differences in genetic IQ for the parents, and the differences in average brain size between races could be the result of nutritional factors.[75] All recent reviews agree that some environmental factors that are unequally distributed between racial groups have been shown to affect intelligence in ways that could contribute to the test score gap. However, currently, the question is whether these factors can account for the entire gap between white and black test scores, or only part of it. One group of scholars, including Richard E. Nisbett, James R. Flynn, Joshua Aronson, Diane Halpern, William Dickens, Eric Turkheimer (2012) have argued that the environmental factors so far demonstrated are sufficient to account for the entire gap. Nicholas Mackintosh (2011) considers this a reasonable argument, but argues that probably it is impossible to ever know for sure; another group including Earl B. Hunt (2010), Arthur Jensen,[19] J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn have argued that this is impossible. Jensen and Rushton consider that it may account for as little as 20% of the gap. Meanwhile, while Hunt considers this a vast overstatement, he nonetheless considers it likely that some portion of the gap will eventually be shown to be caused by genetic factors. JDowning (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence before the strike-out probably needs to go, as well. It is providing a false balance between the mainstream view (that race is an entirely social construct and thus any statement about race and IQ is meaningless) and contributes nothing but confusion to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree on the additional strikeout. That would leave this sentence as the end of the paragraph: "All recent reviews agree that some environmental factors that are unequally distributed between racial groups have been shown to affect intelligence in ways that could contribute to the test score gap." [emphases added]. This is uncontroversially phrased and a good summary, so the next sentence ("However, currently, the question is...") is repetitive. JDowning (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please provide some citations re. "race is an entirely social construct and thus any statement about race and IQ is meaningless". To me, this looks like an attempt to remove coverage of significant researcher opinion by some other route than what WP:DUE prescribes. Deleet (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thed'd be about 90% of the sources at Race (human categorization). Damn, you fancy yourself a "researcher" yet you are unaware of basic facts about the state of current research? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Add to lead: "In the United States, individuals identifying themselves as East Asian tend to have higher average IQ scores than do Caucasians, who, in turn, have higher average IQs than African Americans." Benjamin (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And why should we add that to the lead, especially given the issues with studies and reports on this topic? See WP:YESPOV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It is stated in the wiki voice. Is it seriously contested? Benjamin (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Stating it in Wikipedia's voice is the problem. And given how debated this topic is, I'm surprised to see you asking, "Is it seriously contested?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You think it shouldn't be stated in the voice? That's another argument to be made, but I didn't think that was so in question, considering that it's been pretty stable. Why haven't you changed it already? Or am I misunderstanding you? The impression I get from reading that section is that it isn't seriously contested, but the interpretations, implications, etc of it are. Benjamin (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are stating. You proposed that we add the following to the lead: "In the United States, individuals identifying themselves as East Asian tend to have higher average IQ scores than do Caucasians, who, in turn, have higher average IQs than African Americans." It's not in the lead. Nor should it be. It shouldn't be lower in the article either, unless properly sourced (as in not supported by a WP:Primary source) and given WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is stated lower down in the text of the article:

"In the United States, individuals identifying themselves as East Asian tend to have higher average IQ scores than do Caucasians, who, in turn, have higher average IQs than African Americans. Nevertheless, greater variation in IQ scores exists within each ethnic group than between them.[46]"

That claim, it appears, is stable, sourced, and stated as fact in the encyclopedic voice. Do you not think it should be? Benjamin (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding that piece, I can't see what that source states, but the text is attributed to a decent source -- the "Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education, Volume 1" from Sage Publications. I still don't feel that this US-centric piece should be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you think that is seriously contested and shouldn't be stated in the wikivoice? Benjamin (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a loaded, or at least confusing, question. Looking at the page via Google books, this is summary of a single paragraph in a section which specifically provides more nuance and context. As a whole, the section is specifically about testing bias and how these tests are used. The bit about racial discrepancies is context for this discussion, so taking it in isolation risks cherry-picking. Context always matters, and this isn't the proper way to present this one source, because it's omitting important surrounding context. Both the preceding paragraph, and the following paragraphs go to lengths to explain the significance of SES, and multiple forms of testing bias. Highlighting this one factoid seems inappropriate. The section specifically calls Jensen's approach "untenable", but he is cited, by name, in the very next paragraph based on a single primary source! This suggests that the source was used for convenience, not with an eye to neutrally summarizing it's message. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to reword it to offer a more global perspective, please! Benjamin (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin, why not make the changes you're proposing yourself? I posted two other sources below that might be useful. 2600:1004:B14A:8BE2:8D9F:A931:DC0B:141E (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I added, "In the US, Asians tend to have higher IQ than do Caucasians, who, in turn, have higher average IQs than African Americans. Global measures follow similar trends, and correlate with economic development.", which follows what is said in the lower sections pretty closely. Of course many of the individual studies are controversial, but the existence of the broad trends isn't, and the place to go into more detail about it is in the sections. Benjamin (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: I suggest citing Hunt's textbook for that sentence (I am assuming that is the source your summary is based on), instead of leaving it unsourced. 2600:1004:B114:DC1:C5:3D6A:D631:504A (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are two other sources that support the proposed wording.

WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation by Weiss et al.

Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt. Although it's primarily about the U.S., this section of Hunt's textbook also mentions that the U.S. results are mirrored by international differences.

I was specifically looking for sources that discuss the higher average scores of East Asians in addition to the Black/White IQ gap. There is much more data about the latter than about the former, so if more sources are needed about the Black/White IQ gap, I can provide others.

I don't think the existence of the test score gaps (as opposed to their cause) is particularly controversial, so I would support that being mentioned in the lead. 2600:1004:B158:19EF:CC22:1E30:B10C:B541 (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

Under the section entitled “Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences” there is the following quote: ”Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap“ attributed to Essentials of Psychology: Concepts and Applications by Jeffrey Nevid. I own this text and can not find anything close to what is quoted above (on page 71 or anywhere else). Why is this quote being sourced to this text? 2600:1012:B060:F6B5:890C:5905:A65C:6A91 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The citation lists page 271, not page 71. Per Google Books, this page directly and unambiguously supports this statement. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a critical distinction that needs to be made. Our article has the following text: "Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap." However if you look at page 271 it actually says "increasing evidence points to the importance of environmental factors in explaining racial differences in IQ". You can see for yourrself. This is a contentious article, and it suffers from contributions that are taken out of context, misquoted or plain biased. As a result, it's important to be very careful when making changes to the article. The text does not say (paraphrasing) "growing evidence indicates environmental factors are more important than genetic factors in explaining the racial IQ gap". It says (again paraphrasing) "growing evidence indicates the importance of environmental factors in explaining the racial IQ gap ". There is a significant difference between the two quotes. Even one or two words can have an impact on a quote and change its meaning considerably. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"...indicates the importance of environmental factors..." is so pointless it's almost tautological. "Importance" is relative and requires context. The source says "...increasing evidence points to the importance of environmental factors in explaining racial differences in IQ". Both directly and indirectly, both in isolation and in context, this source supports the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes and I am fine with that phrasing. The only part I have contention with is the unsourced portion - the part of the quote that says "..environmental factors not genetic ones are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap. " In other words, get rid of the "more important" and the "not genetic ones". These are completely unsupported - it's simply not an accurate representation of the text. The rest of the quote is fine though. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No. This is fully supported by the cited source. The quote is in answer to a question posed by the preceding paragraph: Are these racial differences in IQ genetic or environmental in origin?"

The following paragraph further contextualizes this: "Another factor arguing against genetic explanations..."

As I said, both directly and indirectly, both in isolation and in context, this source supports the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else could give us their opinion, since it appears we both (in good faith) interpret the text differently. user:aquillion, as a veteran Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to this article, what do you think about the passage in question? 2600:1012:B023:455C:5CFA:B52F:4775:F684 (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)