Talk:Heritability of IQ

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heritability of IQ article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 4 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Heritability of IQ, 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.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Heritability of IQ 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Genetics

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Junheesin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Junheesin.

Political discussion

there is no political diskussion in this article
- Cyril Burt, Raymond Cattell und Charles Spearman are diskussed to have cheating in their publication in order to prove "Inheritance of intelligence" as a fact.
- 'Inheritance of intelligence' is used to to sanctify an elite among man
- Stephen Jay Gould says that intelligence as an thing and the Inheritance of intelligence as a whole is an myth. (The Mismeasure of Man) --Nerd

Racism

This article is racist pseudoscience. Leaving it up as it is right now is dangerous. It should be deleted or re-edited ASAP. 86.187.234.171 (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence is a friggin babble, doesn't make any sense. Replace/remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.242.184 (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is race mentioned. The hell are you on about? It's not the encylopedia's fault for conclusions that people make from its pages. Information is information. 2601:645:C000:AE10:D863:FFE1:DD10:51FB (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know how these two sentences mesh together: "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." and "The mean correlation of IQ scores between monozygotic twins was 0.86, between siblings 0.47" That has not been my read of the literature at all. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754247/ not to mention plenty of scientists agree that there is a significant genetic component to IQ. (Pinker, Dawkins, of course Francis Crick) 108.54.98.54 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there in the lead: "Although IQ differences between individuals are shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis." For more on why group-level disparities are unlikely to be genetic in origin, see Nisbett et al. which is cited there. For a highly accessible explanation, see this article from The Guardian: [[1]]. For the full discussion that resulted in the idea that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence being ruled WP:FRINGE, see this RfC: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence. Generalrelative (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph on Rushton and Jensen (2010)

The paragraph on Rushton and Jensen (2010) in #Heritability and socioeconomic status does not appear proportionate to me. Among other things, this is from Bentham Open, which has a poor reputation. The part which starts with The most cited adoption projects... uses sources from both before and after the 2010 one to support this point, which is a strong sign of WP:SYNTH. If there is a secondary source which discusses this source or its conclusions, it could be used for context. Grayfell (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm inclined to be charitable with regards to the acceptability of the source: first, Beall's expose of Bentham Open wasn't published until mid 2009 and the resulting drop in impact factor of the journal was spread over a couple of years; second, the review has been cited by several highly cited papers [2]. The paragraph, though, is not a good summary, for several reasons: one, it talks of R&J critiquing "most" of the listed studies but only name one (beyond this one, I could only find citations of the two articles involving Turkheimer, which is fewer than half of those studies); two, it is written in a way assuming familiarity beyond what the article has assumed to this point, e.g., "Furthermore, the studies typically did not examine if IQ gains due to adoption were on the general intelligence factor (g)" is talking about a distinction that Jensen makes between kinds of IQ test that he claims vary with respect to hereditability, but Jensen's argument is itself controversial; three, the last two sentences are unsourced.

We have a choice: either expand our discussion of the sensitivity of IQ tests to heritability so that we can do the source, or tackle the point in less detail, e.g., "R&J criticise the data gathering in C&D's study, arguing their choice of IQ test is a poor choice as it provides a relatively less hereditable measure." — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above, and would suggest option 2 (cutting the unsupported statements) so as to avoid granting Rushton and Jensen greater space than other voices here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the most sense to me, as well. Restraint is called for. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make this change: I think we should cover the additional material, but some of the background is covered in the 'Related measures' section at Spearman's hypothesis; a gesture at that material would suffice. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: - Just a note about Schönemann: later scholarship doesn't fully support his argument that Jensen's PC1 doesn't do what Jensen claims: cf. the discussion in http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.163.2822&rep=rep1&type=pdf I think discussion of this material needs a broader range of sources, and it is a better fit for the Spearman's hypothesis article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I'll cut that citation. Generalrelative (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of "scientific consensus"

My three-month topic ban expired at the end of July, so I'm able to comment here again, and it's about time we resolved this issue. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Academic_consensus says, "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." I have examined the sources cited for this paragraph, as well as the similar paragraphs in the race and intelligence and Intelligence quotient article, and none of them state that there is a consensus for this view or that most scholars hold it. Nor do any of these sources state outright that there is no evidence for a genetic component; they all use more nuanced wording such as "no direct evidence".

I understand that the outcome of the RFC is widely understood as superseding policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR, but we should discuss whether that's a correct conclusion. I encourage user:Literaturegeek to comment here as well, because he's commented on this particular issue before. 2600:1004:B11E:10F3:5DE:11B4:ED6E:8A1C (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already violated WP:CANVASSING twice on this thread, first by going to AmazingCosima's user talkpage to invite them to this discussion, and second by asking Literaturegeek to participate. Such violations are not good practice, especially for someone coming off a topic ban. NightHeron (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this discussion @2600:1004:B11E:10F3:5DE:11B4:ED6E:8A1C:. Yes, this was my impression as well and hence why I felt my edit of the claim for "consensus" was very much justified. Obviously, a survey of almost a hundred experts is much higher quality evidence than four sources that don't seem to even support said claim in the first place. Also, I'd add that this topic has been willingly engaged by numerous non-controversial scientists and academics including many of whom disagree with the hereditarian viewpoint themselves, but are willing to engage in what they see as a worthwhile and valuable debate (James Flynn for instance: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235217300958). AmazingCosima (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another citation which explicitly satisfies WP:RS/AC: "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]] Note that these authors agree with Flynn that research into race and intelligence is defensible but still emphasize the consensus that group-level differences in test performance do not appear to be genetic in origin. If anyone would like to examine the RfC on this topic from last April, here it is: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 70#RfC on race and intelligence Generalrelative (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation in question doesn't satisfy [[WP:RS/AC] and I think you know this @Generalrelative:. "most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences" has no citations/references to the surveys of experts that would be necessary to substantiate this claim and as such, is an groundless and unfounded claim on the part of the researcher. I have already provided you with such a survey of experts (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301886). You have simply chosen to ignore it because you did not like the findings of it. Perhaps it makes you feel better to tell yourself that most experts are opposed to a partially hereditarian view, but as the most recent data (or at least the most recent I am aware of) has shown, that's simply not the case. The overwhelming majority of intelligence researchers think that genes, to some extent, explain racial gaps in intelligence testing. I look forward to future surveys of intelligence experts that will, of course, provide further refutation of your claims. :) AmazingCosima (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote supporting the statement of consensus is from Nature and is obviously RS. It exactly meets the standard in the sentence of WP:RS/AC that was quoted at the beginning of this thread. In your earlier edit summary you seemed to regard an article by Davide Piffer, who refers to African immigrants as "gorillas" and founded the pseudoscientific journal OpenPsych, as RS. You're entitled to have whatever POV you want, but the consensus of Wikipedia editors has already been established, and it doesn't support your POV or that of Davide Piffer.

Rindermann's so-called "survey of experts" has been discussed at length, and there's no need to reopen that discussion. Please see the RfC [4] and related discussions at WP:RSN, WP:AN, and WP:ARCA. NightHeron (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron is entirely correct. Rindermann et al. (2020) has already been discussed ad nauseam in the RfC. It was not found to be persuasive there so I see no reason it should be taken as persuasive here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP: Thank you for the ping. Yes, I enjoyed the RfC and considering and debating the sources, it was quite a stimulating debate. Unfortunately, my interest level in this topic area is very low and thus I have little to no motive to edit this topic area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, this editor is still topic banned. This was done with relatively wide consensus due to extensive and widespread disruptive behavior. There was no "three month topic ban", instead the block was three months, which is not the same thing. It appears the only reason the block was set at three months was because the IP range is so wide. Again, a WP:BLOCK is not the same as a WP:BAN.

This IP editor refuses to create an account, which is the reason this is so tedious to keep track of. The IP is fully aware of the hassle this shifting IP address causes others, and is actively taking advantage of this confusion.

This editor should not have posted this here, or on either user's talk page, because this falls under their topic ban. The will need to appeal their topic ban before making any relevant edits. This is explained at WP:TBAN. The IP editor has shown enough familiarity with Wikipedia's rules that they should already be aware of all of this. Grayfell (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP is apparently still at it, I have started an AN/I discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Race and intelligence block and ban issue. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't claims of scientific consensus reference the surveys showing a majority of intelligence researchers think there are genetic components to these gaps? Excluding this and instead referring to papers by researchers on one side of the debate seems to be textbook WP:BIAS. Oea the King (talk)

A critical analysis of the Heritability of IQ that might be useful

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo

This youtube video details some criticisms of IQ Heritability that I don't see mentioned, such as poor controls when comparing groups of people, and a misunderstanding of what heritability means in IQ (the variance attributable to genetics, vs traits attributable to genetics).

DazzleNovak (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of racial IQ is fundamentally bogus. Races don't have IQ's - individuals do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals only meaningfully have IQ scores if we presume that IQ testing is consistent and fair. The video does a good job of explaining, among other things, why that presumption of fairness and consistency should not be taken for granted. While that video is very good, it is not WP:RS. For our purposes it is still useful, because the description has an extensive list of citations. While most of the cited sources are reliable, they are mostly WP:PRIMARY, so using them is tricky. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's even worse - they're confusing IQ with actual intelligence. The only thing an IQ test does is to measure your ability to take an IQ test.

This is WP:FRINGEN, no relevant expert believes this. Oea the King (talk)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]