Talk:Race and intelligence

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)

See Intelligence (journal) for some well-sourced commentary on the merits of that particular publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

'Highly regarded' went out the window when they had white supremacists on the editorial board. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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: Template:Tq - MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That your attempt to smear Bird is thoroughly unconvincing. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please also read OpenPsych concerning the journal co-founded by Davide Piffer. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone around who can check recent edits for Richard Lynn?

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

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)

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

Introduction is inflammatory

Template:Coltop 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)

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)

That is a false equivalency. Evidence of a genetic component is not intrinsically racist, nor is supporting the evidence that this is the case. Scientific racism would be the concentrated and targeted use of this evidence (or fabrication thereof) to promote racist ideas.

It would be encyclopedic and objective to speak of a genetic component without bias. WP:YWAB does not apply—we are discussing something other than scientific racism, which is a discredited concept. This is simple logic.

Epifanove^🗯️ 19:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This is the article about Race and intelligence, not Heritability of IQ. This isn't about 'a genetic component', it is about racist pseudoscience used to suggest that one racial group is superior to another based on weak or nonexistent evidence. And correctly pointing out that is scientific racism is not 'biased', it is correctly following the reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia articles are required to do. MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

That is a fair point, but does not mean that this isn't about a "genetic component". That is precisely what the question of "Race and Intelligence" is about... Now I agree that it is best to be careful about the evidence and wording here, because the wrong phrasing can facilitate lots of misguided racism. But there is certain evidence to speak of, and a lack of a certain other kind, and entirely ignoring and insulting this evidence by calling it scientific racism and pseudoscience is weak.

It would be intellectually honorable to reconcile certain heritable differences between "races" (such as somatic traits, AND intelligence, as logically and empirically follows) with the social structure properly, instead of calling any such claims racist and pseudoscientific.

This article must cover the topic of 'race and intelligence' and not 'racism about intelligence' as you seem to suggest.I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think we shoud be more graceful and honest in approaching this topic. Epifanove^🗯️ 00:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Fundamentally, since there is zero genetic evidence that defines a "race" and actually contradicts it, you have only the social consequences of the racist policies of certain countries. Attempts to draw broad conclusions from narrow samples are ipso facto bad science and don't deserve any coverage in the lead. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

"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.

Template:Talk quote block Stonkaments (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

"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:[2][3][4]. 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)

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)

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)

I've gone ahead and done so. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@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)

Gathered quotations in order of cite anchors:
1. Template:Tq
2. Template:Tq
3. Template:Tq
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. Template:Tq
7. Template:Tq
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. Template:TqTemplate:PbTo 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)

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)

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 Template:Tq, not merely that Template:Tq. 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)

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)

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)

#4 Mackintosh 2001 is available at archive. Conclusion has: Template:Tq fiveby(zero) 20:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! This would support text saying the thesis is unsupported by evidence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I like: 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)

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)

available at archive btw https://archive.org/details/EarlHuntHumanIntelligence2010/page/n452/mode/1up Hi! (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Y'all, I just WP:BOLDly copied the language from the lead down into the relevant part of the article body: Template:Tq Does that satisfy everybody's concerns? I also went and removed one extraneous citation. We can probably refine the list of citations further. Generalrelative (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thumbs up, thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've fine with that. Loki (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  😎 Generalrelative (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that's much better, thanks! Stonkaments (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)