Talk:Race, Evolution, and Behavior/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Missing citations

There are several citations missing here, for example (Tucker 2000). These references give the appearance of being {{Harv}} references, but actually use an obscure and non-working template {{A(Y)ref}}, which links to nowhere. They should be changed to full citations in footnotes, since most of this article uses that format. Or, if someone really likes the Harvard reference style, they switch the whole article over to Wikipedia:Harvard references, but that would be too much work for me. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the non-working templates. The missing references are:

• Lynn (1991)
• Rushton (1995)
• Rushton (1996)
• Beales et al. (1984)

Could someone familiar with the literature in this field find these references and put them in footnotes? Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Twinning

From the article:

More recent studies contradict Rushton's claims. The prediction of the theory that blacks have a higher frequency of twins is incorrect. However, the rate of twin births in the US has doubled since 1971, the time of the study Rushton cited, due to older mothers (for which twin births are naturally more common) and fertility treatments, both demographic characteristics that are more common among Whites.

Table 50 actually shows support for higher rates of twins for blacks (1.5 times more twins) in the 18 to 30 age range. Needless to say that it is original research. I'm going to remove this part unless someone finds a source. --Zero g (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the ref you were asking for. No need to take out the sentence now.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your source states "Historical differences in twinning rates between non-Hispanic white and black mothers have been largely eliminated (28.8 per 1,000 non-Hispanic white compared with 30.0 for black women)." Which shows that black mothers, despite a closing of the gap, still get more twin births. As such the article doesn't accurately describe the content of the source. --Zero g (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you understand that there is no significant difference between a birthing rate of 28.8 per 1000 and one of 30 per 1000? Furthermore, the authors point to Nebraska as a state where the twinning rate is double that of the national average.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think 4.2% is significant, especially if you consider that white females have children at a later age and more often use fertility treatment which increases the chance of twinning.

A study examining the National Center for Health Statistics of 1985 found standardized DZ twinning rates of approximately 3.7, 6.6, and 9.7 per 1000 for Asians, whites, and blacks, respectively. [2] --Zero g (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What you think is unimportant. The authors say in the full article the differences isn't significant.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it indeed doesn't matter what I think. I'd say NPOV is reached sufficiently with your latest edit. --Zero g (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Could the increase in twinning be related to fertility treatment. Shambalala (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is almost all of this article criticism?

I'm beginning to realise that there is a concerted effort to suppress this work and its findings. I'm not saying for a moment that it is rock-solid thesis, but I have never seen any article on Wikipedia that takes such an aggressive politically-correct stance (compare it to something truly ridiculous such as Mein Kampf, if you don't believe me). If one looks down the list of criticisms in this article, many of them aren't even valid and could be easily dismissed with a simple sentence. Perhaps it is because those who have shaped this article are afraid of the possibility that there may actually be substantial reality contained within the thesis. I do not intend to enter into a war with you people, but it gives me the heebie-jeebies to see how overwhelmingly an article can be throttled if there are enough people on Wikipedia trying to further a particular agenda. In short, the first casualty in "truth-by-consensus" is truth.

Don't forget, egalitarianism means that we have equal rights - NOT that we are all the same.

Naymetayken (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Nonsense

Quote from article: "Rushton argues that race is a valid biological concept..."

This is like saying "Rushton argues that water is wet." Race is a valid biological construct so this sentence is silly. One may as well say that Rushton argues evolution is true. Hence, I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.145.157 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most biologists and anthropologists today would agree that race is mostly a social construct, with little if any biological meaning. Thus I have reverted youe edit.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Biology textbooks say otherwise. Without race, evolution doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.144.112 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear: race as a biological construct in animals exists and is a legitimate construct. However, the genetic diversity that exists within the human genome isn't sufficient to divide it into well-construed "races", much less the typical "races" that are socially recognized today. In that sense, "race" as applied to human beings isn't suppoted as a biological construct.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? I suppose my biology degree is worthless then? Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" and not a medium for your propaganda.86.42.242.122 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then please cite reliable sources that say that races are supported as a biological construct in humans. Here's a tertiary source (review) to prove my position: [3]--Ramdrake (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Without having read either the article or the source at issue closely, let me comment that it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide what is and is not to be considered to be "nonsense". Please note the lead sentence of the Wikipedia core content policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, which reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that race shouldn<t be mentioned: it does exist, at the very least as a social construct. My point is, since the legitimay of race as a biological construct is the subject of some controversy mentioning that a well-known but polemical researcher believes in the biological legitimacy of races should be mentioned, as their acceptance as biological constructs within the human race shouldn't be taken for granted. I hope this is clearer.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This book is also published on a national socialist website

This book is also published on a national socialist website. (Proof: Here is this site, but it should not be an advertising of this site, but a proof, that this book contain national socialist ideology - like Alfred Rosenberg's myth of the 20th century http://wehrwolf.nationales-netz.com/v7/index.php?section=docsys&cmd=details&id=31) Why? Because this book is in such an unballanced racist way, that basics of national socialist thinking (Arayans, which live in the area of the Indus-River and Mongolians, which both formed the NE-European people are the so called "supreme-humans" and Africans are the so called "under-humans" (Apes))seem to be "approoved" by this book. This book is very harmful - especially the German edition of this book - due to a misfit translation. -- 92.117.215.14 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the wikilink above by removing embedded whitespace. I don't read German and cannot comment on the content. I will comment, however, that is not proper for Wikipedia articles to take WP:POV positions or to pick and choose sources based on the agreement or disagreement of WP editors with positions espoused by those sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor instructions on NPOV noticeboard

Due to this article's potential NPOV issues, I've brought it up on the NPOV noticeboard in order to get instructions from uninvolved editors on how it can be improved. According to them, the article needs some work. I'll quote the instructions I was given about this:

Please read WP:SOAP. It doesn't matter if you are right, or Rushton is right. What matters is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The book should be presented in a neutral fashion, with a WP:MOS compliant criticism section. The article is a horrible quotefarm of criticism which is non-encyclopedic. Re-write the article to paraphrase the notable claims/sections of the book and then have a relatively short (certainly no longer than the summary section) section of criticism, including only the most notable critiques and maybe one or two quotes of a sentence or two each. The article as it is written looks like the authors found every quote about the book they could and included them all in the article. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the NPOV tag to the article until these issues can be resolved.

The other editors who have worked on this article are welcome to make some of these changes themselves. Otherwise, I'll begin making them within the next few days. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the quote farm that I think this referred most directly to: the various unconnected criticisms that occupied the "Critical response" section. I have restored the deleted "Critiques" section as appropriately referenced content that attempts to summarize the critical arguments that have been advanced. Although this can certainly be edited-down somewhat, I certainly don't think outright deletion of the entire criticism section is at all what User:Theseeker4 intended. And anyway, he is just one opinion. It seems more productive to try to work on this material constructively, rather than destructively. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Other criticisms section

The following paragraphs were moved from the Other criticisms section of the article. It's not clear how much of it is from sources that directly address the subject of this article, but perhaps parts of it can be salvaged and moved back into the article in a more coherent way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Rushton's application of r/K theory has been severely criticized: for example, by noting that many animal species do not follow the predictions of r/K theory. Rushton, whom the Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes as an "academic racist", heads the Pioneer Fund, a nonprofit organization Tucker (2002) accused of misusing social science to politically fuel oppression and funding specialized research to "prove [what it alleges as] the genetic and intellectual inferiority of blacks." Despite such accusations, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson (one of the two cofounders of r/K selection theory) states "I think Phil [Rushton] is an honest and capable researcher ... The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is it's logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species - a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example - no one would have batted an eye."

Richard Lynn has developed similar theories and argues that the ice age that took place in East Asia from about 28,000 to 12,000 years ago acted as a selection force on East Asians to increase intelligence by requiring the building of shelter, making clothes, and making fires, and selected especially strongly for spatial skills such as those needed to hunt large prey and build the tools necessary to do so. (Lynn 1991) Rushton (1996) has cited the fact that the order in Blacks, Whites, and East Asians appeared is the same as the order of their respective brain sizes as additional evidence. Critics argue that tropical rain-forest conditions, being more constant, would favor K-selection, while seasonal Arctic environments would be less predictable and associated with r-selection, exactly the opposite of what Rushton has argued for. Rushton has responded that it is the East African savanna that should be compared to the Arctic. Critics respond that Northern mice, foxes, and deer are not better endowed intellectually than their tropical relatives, and the same is true for virtually all other animals with Arctic and tropical representatives. However, even assuming that the savanna vs. the Arctic has such an effect, this means that Rushton selectively chooses only a very few of the wide variety of habitats humans have lived in for a long time, but then makes general clams for much larger areas with many different habitats such as Africa and all blacks. Similarly, the theory has difficulty explaining why Native Americans, who appeared even later and emigrated from the northernmost parts of Asia, do not currently have high scores on IQ tests. On the other hand, Rushton (1995) argues that lower scores of Native Americans can be attributed to the evolutionary relaxation of cognitive demands due to the more temperate environment and comparative ease with which North American fauna could be hunted. But it can be argued that life along the fertile river plains in China was not particularly harsh. It is also questionable that conditions in deserts are no less harsh but people living there do not currently score high on IQ tests.

The theory is directly contradicted by the only comparative study on IQ scores in different European nations that showed a statistically insignificant association between the average IQ and latitude of various European nations. In contrast, Beals et al. (1984) p. 309, reported a correlation of 0.62 (p=0.00001) between latitude and cranial capacity in samples worldwide, and reported that each degree of latitude was associated with an increase of 2.5 cm³ in cranial volume. A more recent study finds this pattern only when including a Siberian population living in extremely cold condition. The explanation may be natural selection for a thermoregulatory capacity in extremely cold environments, resulting in brachycephalization, rather than a selection for intelligence.

Scott MacEachern suggests that through the study of archaeology one may test Rushton's assertions that African populations suffer severe cognitive deficits when compared to other modern humans. Rushton wrote that mental deficits are visible in an evolutionary context, advancing environmental explanations for such deficits, and asserting that such cognitive differences existed prehistorically as well. Scott MacEachern writes that examination of the archaeological record does not support the claims made by these researchers; rather, it suggests that regional differences in IQ test score results should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.

Research on racial differences in twinning and testis size was the subject of a review by author and scientist Jared Diamond (1986) in the journal Nature, in which he investigated correlations between possible racial variations in testicular size and hormone levels, and reported on one study suggesting that dead Danish men at autopsy have larger testicles than dead Chinese men. Some studies also suggested lower hormone levels and frequency of twins among Asians than Africans. However, Diamond notes that smaller testicle size among Koreans was not associated with a lower frequency of sexual intercourse, which contradicts the Rushton rK-theory. Higher frequency of twins in certain African populations can be explained by large scale consumption of Yams, which in rats produce such results.

Rushton's sources, such as a "semi-pornographic book" and Penthouse magazine, have been dismissed by other researchers, criticized as extremely biased with inadequate reviews of the literature, as misreporting the results, or as simply false. There have also been many other criticisms of the theory.

One study examining the National Center for Health Statistics of 1985 in California found standardized Dizygotic twinning rates of approximately 3.7, 6.6, and 9.7 per 1000 for Asians, whites, and blacks, respectively. More recent, US-wide studies from data gathered over several years show that the racial gap in twinning rates has vanished. This goes counter to a basic assumption in Rushton's claims. However, the rate of twin births in the US has doubled since 1971, the time of the study Rushton cited, due to older mothers (for which twin births are naturally more common) and fertility treatments, both demographic characteristics that are more common among Whites. A scholarly article reviewing Rushton's claims regarding twinning makes various criticisms and concludes: "Moreover, Rushton misinterprets a number of relevant aspects related to the biology of twinning. The claim that ethnic differences in twinning rates provide evidence for an r/K typology in human populations with respect to reproductive strategies does not appear to be warranted."

A meta-analysis shows that blacks are not more psychopathic, that differences in sex hormones between whites and East Asians are best explained by environmental differences, and that blacks do not differ from whites when testing for the big five personality traits.

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs more work, and it would be a kindness to other editors to suggest additional sources we can turn to as we edit this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have put back the NPOV tag as of 29 July 2010 (30 July GMT).

This article needs a lot more discussion about adequate sourcing and neutral point of view. I wonder if this article even meets the Wikipedia criteria for a book article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to what I perceived as a non-neutral point of view, I have removed the quotefarm of gushing praise that was almost entirely sourced to charlesdarwinresearch.org, definitely not a reliable source for the subject of this article. The remaining Wilson quote was sourced to a book that was not even written by Wilson, so whereas I actually do think that Wilson's view should be mentioned in the r/K section, someone should track down the proper source on his perspective. In addition, I restored the "Critique" section, whose removal was clearly inconsistent with article neutrality. What is needed in this article, I think, is a section on "Response" that summarizes the reception in the scientific community and public at large. Some kind of meta-analysis is essential to writing this in a balanced way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The book is obviously notable, so it merits an article. Now that the quotefarm has been removed, do we still need the NPOV tag? David.Kane (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though the worst quotefarms have been removed, I think there are still some issues here. For one thing, the "criticism" section still completely overwhelms the rest of the article, which is one of the things that TheSeeker4 originally asked me to change. For another, some of the criticisms (such as the one from Gil White) do not even mention Rushton's book, which is clearly WP:SYNTH. The "Flynn effect" section, which claims to be discussing Flynn's book The Rising Curve, is also cited to an article by Fredric Weizmann that doesn't even mention Flynn's book.

I'm going to remove those of the criticisms which are clearly synth or unsupported by their sources. I'll try to take a more nuanced approach than I did last time, though. If I can find reliable sources for some of the more positive reviews, I might add back some of those also. If anyone disagrees with the changes I'll be making, please discuss them here. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is proving more difficult than I’d anticipated. I’m able to find the full text of some of the reviews that these quotes are from, so they clearly aren’t distorting the authors of these quotes by selectively quoting them, but I’m still not able to determine the sources in which the quotes were originally published.

Overall, I agree with Sławomir Biały about what’s necessary in order to make this article neutral. What I think the article needs most is more of the reactions of scientists who view Rushton’s book favorably. (And those clearly do exist.) Does anyone else want to make an effort at tracking down the original sources for them?

In addition to what was formerly in the article, [4] has several other quotes from researchers who’ve reviewed the book favorably. Obviously we wouldn’t be citing this web page itself, but it can at least give us some clues about what authors and sources we should be searching for in order to provide some balance to the book’s criticism. Until we’ve made more progress with this, though, the article is pretty clearly unbalanced in the criticism direction, so I think the NPOV tag should stay. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Captain, please bear in mind that "balance" here doesn't necessarily mean as much praise as criticism, but rather praise and criticism in proportion to what has been expressed in scholarly circles so far, and the fact is that this work has been much more criticized than praised so far. So, going out and trying to find specifically refs that do nothing but praise the book comes across as a definite attempt at POV-pushing the article to put it in a better light.-Ramdrake (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ramdrake, yes, when you write, "please bear in mind that 'balance' here doesn't necessarily mean as much praise as criticism, but rather praise and criticism in proportion to what has been expressed in scholarly circles so far" you are correctly describing Wikipedia undue weight policy, "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." This is why I wonder whether this article should even exist; there is no indication that anything other than a tiny minority of scholars thinks that this book is even worth discussing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

“So, going out and trying to find specifically refs that do nothing but praise the book comes across as a definite attempt at POV-pushing the article to put it in a better light”

If the article were already somewhat close to being balanced I would agree with you, but at the moment the (negative) criticism of this book completely overwhelms the rest of the article, and all of the uninvolved editors who’ve commented here and at the NPOV noticeboard have agreed that this isn’t appropriate. I don’t have a problem with the article containing more criticism of the book than praise, but the criticism shouldn’t take up more space than the rest of the article put together, as it currently does. And if we’re going to try and remedy this problem, one way of going about this is by finding reliable sources for some of the book’s positive reviews, particularly those which were in the article until they were removed yesterday based on inadequate sourcing. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should be partitioning the reviews into "favorable" and "unfavorable". This is an artificial dichotomy that I find counterproductive for maintaining a neutral point of view. For example, while the Harpending review did have some positive things to say, it seems to be inappropriate to categorize it as an altogether "favorable" review. He does say in the very first paragraph "the result is not very satisfying to me", and in the review does "pick at Rushton's hypothesis". In some ways, he treated Rushton's conclusions with quite a bit of skepticism.

Also, given a book as controversial as this one, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to have a substantial amount of criticism. Criticism should generally be handled by giving both the critique and, if applicable, the response to that critique. So, rather than removing criticism, I think a careful effort should be made to find balanced sources that discuss both sides to the argument. Obviously, obtaining a secondary source that provides a meta-analysis of the reviews of the book is essential to achieving a neutral point of view here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your approach sounds like a good idea in theory, although it might be difficult to make it work in practice. Something I’ve noticed is often the case about books as controversial as this one is that reviewers quickly become polarized into those that are “for” and those that are “against” it. I guess Harpending is something of an exception, although when you consider how negative this book’s most negative reviews are, it’s hard to avoid thinking of Harpending’s review as a positive one. The book’s most angrily negative reviews aren’t included in the article, but I recall encountering some of them in the past: I remember one of them stating “Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book”, and another referring to the book as a “larger-than-average pile of shit”.

If you can manage to describe the reception of this book neutrally without creating an apparent dichotomy between favorable and unfavorable reactions, though, you’re welcome to do so. I would approve of the approach you’re suggesting, if you can manage it. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały, are you intending to try and improve the balance of this article in the way that you’re suggesting? As I said, I approve of the idea in theory, but I’m not sure it’ll be possible. So if you’re intending to make an attempt at improving the article this way, I won’t interfere, but if you aren’t intending to do this I’ll probably be trying to improve the article’s balance in the way that I suggested, which includes this distinction between favorable and unfavorable reviews. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see Sławomir's thoughtful comments, and it occurs to me that maybe it is impossible to describe this book at all with due weight under Wikipedia policies without basically trashing the book. My extensive review of the literature also suggests that the book is not well regarded by other scholars who are close to the evidence and familiar with the other literature. That might suggest something other than "balance" is appropriate in writing an article about the book. Or that might suggest that the book shouldn't have an article about it in Wikipedia at all--there are content guidelines about articles on books that would be well worth reviewing for all the editors here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If, as seems to be the case, the reviews of the book really are as divided as this discussion would seem to suggest, it would at least help if we could get some sources that might be regarded as very authoritative on either "side" of the divide if possible. This might give a better perspective on how to organize the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rushton's true, if you will, claim to fame is his influence on The Bell Curve. This book was Rushton's own summary of his research and was suggested as serious reading in a subsequent edition of The Bell Curve. Given Rushton's influence and the firestorm over his book, the book is certainly notable. We probably need to adopt a more chronological view of the book and associated views on Rushton's work, as despite the continuing of "the debate," Rushton's scholarship is now generally seen as lacking in quality. It might be helpful to end with a "Relevancy today" section with some examples of recent citations of this book in particular, that's more thinking out loud. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it’s accurate to say that Rushton’s research heavily influenced Herrnstein and Murray for The Bell Curve? In 1994, by far the most prolific researcher about race and intelligence was Arthur Jensen. I haven’t read The Bell Curve (I guess maybe I should), but my impression has been that it was based more on Jensen’s research than Rushton’s. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

They cite Rushton, I've also seen discussions of The Bell Curve which state Rushton's work is central to their thesis. Unfortunately I'm limited to online searching of The Bell Curve at the moment. Jensen is less vigorous (IMHO) in postulating clear superiority and inferiority. At this point I really need to do some reading to comment in depth, you might have to wait a bit. :-( PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies in advance, "Oriental" versus "Asian" has nothing to do with Rushton, born in England with formative years in South Africa, he'd use the Queen's English. Considering he places Asians at the top heap, so to speak, it's a bit tenuous to have a whole unsourced paragraph talking about offended North American Asian activists. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I dug out The Bell Curve (1994 edition). Jensen, unsurprisingly, is the most cited. However, Rushton comes in at #2 with 10 individual works cited plus 2 more with Bogaert. Flynn manages only 7. Just a tidbit for those curious about Rushton's influence. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read the detailed review "The Tainted Sources of The Bell Curve"? It's fairly widely reprinted in published anthologies. I read that, after reading the book itself, back when the book The Bell Curve was published. I've read bunches of other reviews of The Bell Curve. The one thing that is universally pointed out by geneticists about The Bell Curve is that The Bell Curve muffed most of its discussion of genetics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Capturing effect at its release

“[an] incendiary thesis....that separate races of human beings evolved different reproductive strategies to cope with different environments and that these strategies led to physical differences in brain size and hence in intelligence. Human beings who evolved in the warm but highly unpredictable environment of Africa adopted a strategy of high reproduction, while human beings who migrated to the hostile cold of Europe and northern Asia took to producing fewer children but nurturing them more carefully.” -- Malcolm W. Browne, New York Times Book Review

Browne had been the science writer for the NYT since 1977. Being the most read book review of the book also bringing it to the attention of the general reader, this would be a good start to assessments and reactions to the book over time, which organization I think would do better justice to that topic. The Browne reference currently listed in the article under "Reviews" does not appear to actually be a book review per se, it's a rumination on the content of the two books, Rushton's and The Bell Curve.. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Being the most read book review of the book also bringing it to the attention of the general reader, this would be a good start to assessments and reactions to the book over time, which organization I think would do better justice to that topic."

Sounds reasonable to me. You’re welcome to reorganize the article this way, if you think that’s best. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The book that I ordered to use as a source arrived today. It’s A Mirror to Nature by Peter Knudtson, and it has a 32-page chapter on Rushton’s theory about R/K selection as applied to human races. I haven’t read it carefully yet, but it seems fairly neutral in its treatment of Rushton, including quotes from scholars who both approve and disapprove of this idea.

As per Vecrumba’s comments above, I think it’s a good idea in general for this article to try and focus on the most notable commentaries on Rushton and his book. This is also similar to what The Seeker suggested to me when I brought this article up at the NPOV noticeboard a year ago. Whoever originally wrote this article seemed to be trying to include absolutely as many commentaries on the book as possible, when instead we should be offering a representative sampling of the most notable reviews, and a general summary of those that are less notable.

Does anyone have a problem with me editing the article to try and bring it closer to this? An alternative is to say that large changes to the article should be avoided during the arbitration case, in which case we should also revert the large changes to the article that Sławomir Biały made a week ago. If other people would prefer that large changes be avoided during arbitration, I’d be OK with just putting the article back in the state it was in when the arbitration case started, but I’d prefer to work with Sławomir Biały to try and make the article better than the way it was before. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is friendly advice from an editor not involved in the ArbCom case (who, as you know, is following the ArbCom case file closely): prudence suggests that involved editors in the case would be very wise to refrain entirely from editing articles that might be construed to be within the scope of the case while the case is pending, unless it is for ministerial edits such as copy-editing. I am not involved in the case, but I have been quite cautious about substantive edits to articles that might seem to be related to the case while the case is still pending. Wikipedia has 6,839,836 articles to edit, as of today, so there are plenty of other places where editors can make a contribution while waiting for the case to be decided. Reading reliable sources and learning more about the subject while the case is pending is the safe thing to do, and it might even be good for you in the long run. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Listen, there are only two options here. On July 30th, Sławomir Biały made more changes to the article than had been made to it cumulatively in the previous year. As you’ve pointed out in your own case, caution while the arbitration case is in progress is something that applies to editors who are uninvolved in the case as well as those who are involved. If we’re going to apply that caution to this article also, that means major edits like the ones made by Sławomir Biały should not be allowed during the arbitration case. Or alternatively, we could try to improve the article the same way we would at any other time.

I would prefer the second option, but you seem to be suggesting that the first option is a better idea. Am I correct to assume that? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Closer" to what is the issue. What was said/thought at the time is different from what is said/thought now which is why I suggest the chronological view. Even perceived neutrality needs to be taken with a grain of salt; "neutral" and "objective" often are closer in meaning to "resonate with the reader as neutral and objective" and not based on an external objective measuring rod of general scholarship. I (myself included) would tread lightly at this article while the R&I proceedings are still underway. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, do you think it would be better that major changes to this article be avoided while the arbitration case is underway? I guess I would be OK with keeping it in a state close to what it was in when the arbitration case started, which would have to involve undoing Sławomir Biały’s changes. If we’re going to keep his changes, though, then it’s too late for us to avoid major changes to the article during the arbitration case, since in that case it’s undergone major changes during the case already. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say leave as is.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And what’s that based on? If we’re not going to try and avoid major changes during the arbitration case, there’s no reason to not try and improve the article further. As has been pointed out several times, it’s definitely capable of being improved beyond the current state. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no rush. I would suggest those less involved with the case (as in not named parties) work on some reorganization in the meantime with comments from all. I put back Jensen (that would be notable) and some other comments not for "balance" but to make sure we don't lose anything in a more chronological view. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion of the Encyclopedia of Race and Crime

Please explain. It is edited by two criminologists. Here is some info about them: [5][6] Miradre (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither have any expertise in evolutionary biology or anthropology - they cannot be taken as judges of the evidence or about its reception in anthropology. Especially not when we know that their statement is in fact in direct contradiction of at least 20 other mainstream sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously criminologists are allowed to voice their view on race and crime. Anthropology does not have a monopoly an everything related to race.Miradre (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But, they don't have a right to voice their views on anthropology's or biology's views on topics within their fields. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously a criminologist is not an anthropologist. But neither does anthropologists decide for everyone else what is right regarding race.Miradre (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Rushton's ideas are taken seriously in the field of criminology. In addition to the Encyclopedia source that you removed, they're also discussed in Gabbidon’s Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime, Gabbidon and Greene’s textbook Race and Crime, Walsh’s Race and Crime: A Biosocial Analysis, and Walsh and Beaver’s Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research. Saying this article should be limited to what anthropologists say about Rushton's ideas is like saying that the Race and intelligence article should be limited to what IQ researchers say about that topic. Articles are supposed to include the viewpoints about a topic that exist in all of the disciplines that discuss it, not just some of them.Boothello (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The criminologists are making statements about how the theory has been received in anthropology and about the evidence in its favor - which is clearly outside of their area of expertise. We can include a statement to the effect that criminologists take the theory seriously, but we can not use them as a source about the level of acceptance in other discipline or about the general weighing of evidence for r-k selection theory or for Rushton's application of it.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we can cite criminologists for what they empirical relationships they have found and what they think about the theory. As we can do for psychologists. Let me repeat. Anthropologists do not "own" race.Miradre (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you sure do like repetition. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Should I take that as you no longer objecting to reinserting the Encyclopedia? Miradre (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me see...no?·Maunus·ƛ· 12:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because the American Anthropological Association has issued a decree stating that races do not exist?Miradre (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, please explain you mass deletions here: [7]. Why did you delete Wilson, certainly a notable view in defense of Rushton? Why did you delete one of the peer reviewed studies? Source please for that Eysenck was was Rushton's thesis advisor. Source also for that Jensen and Rushton are close friends.Miradre (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the given source did not support that Pioneer Fund has sponsored all of Rushton's books. Or even one. Maybe they did for the abridged version, but a source would be needed. The unabridged are quite well-cited so imagine they have sold well without any financial support. Anyway, I assume you stated this by mistake so please correct.Miradre (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Because that is only half of the wilson quote, and because the context in which it is given makes it clear that it is not an endorsement or a favourable criticism of his work. The crovovic study is not notable and just mentioning it is undue weight and synthesis. The same probably applies to most of the other studies you have introduced.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is the full context? Please explain. Why is the crovovic study not notable? Why are studies finding support not notable while those critical that you favor are? You did not respond to all my questions regarding your edits. Please do.Miradre (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the top for the moment, non-experts finding correlations outside their field of expertise which they deem to be causative cannot be represented as anything other than opinion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the relationship between race and crime is an area where the fields of psychology, anthropology and criminology all overlap. Anthropologists are the experts on race, but psychologists are the experts on behavior, and criminologists are the experts on factors that influence crime rates. A neutral article should include all three perspectives. Maunus said in his comment above that he didn't mind if the article mentions what criminologists think of Rushton's theory. Will someone add that to the article? If not, I'll add it myself. I think it should be mentioned in the J. Philippe Rushton article too.Boothello (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read, criminologists either point out Rushton's restrictive use of crimes which suit his hypothesis and the discarding of those that don't—or don't have much to say about Rushton as he's not someone expert (or even trained) in the field. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look in the sources I mentioned above, that doesn't seem to be the case. Gabbidon and Greene discuss Rushton’s theory as one of several valid explanations for racial disparities in crime rates, even though they admit it's heavily criticized. Walsh is even more interesting. Walsh discusses Rushton's theory a lot, and is somewhat defensive of Rushton, because he says that a lot of the criticisms of Rushton are politically based, and that this has no place in science. You can verify this for yourself at Google books if you want to.Boothello (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable edits

• "Rushton's close friend"
• "Rushton's thesis advisor,"
• "and which has funded subsequent editions of the book"
• Also, please explain your dubious tags.Miradre (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is of course relevant that Eysenck was Rushton's dissertation advisor and he has a close personal relationship to Jensen. The Pioneer fund has paid for the subsequent editions of Race evolution beavior through the Darwin institute. I find it dubious that those studies in fact lend support to Rushton's ideas. The Crovovic study for example did not - it merely used the R/k terminology to describe different reproduction strategies among two serbian romani groups. Also these studies are not necessarily notale eough to even merit mention.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You have given no source for these claims.Miradre (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The only claim having a source, the one regarding funding, does not support your claim.Miradre (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Eysenc was not Rushton's advisor?[8] Regarding funding my source says: "This created such reaction that Transaction Publishers in New Brunswick New Jersey, declared that despite the imprint of those volumes they had not published them and demanded that Rushton destroy the remaining 60,000 copies wch Rushton did with some ill-tempered words. That was only temporary setback for a richly funded racist, however; and an altenate pinter was generated so that Rushton's bigotry could be continued to be disseminated. (Rushton 2000) The alternative publisher was Rushton's own chares Darwin Research Institute in London, Ontario, Canada, whih he had set up so that he could in effect directly receive Pioneer Fund Support greatly in excess of what would have been possible had the money been given to the Univeristy of Western Ontario for management. In financially supporting this gambit, the Pioneer Fund remained in accord with its long term policy of publcizing previously held convictions rather than backing anything that coud be counted as actual research" (Brace 2005:262)·Maunus·ƛ· 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you add sources for your claims. That the Charles Darwin Research Institute has received funding does not mean this went to all later editions of the book. The unabridged versions, at least, have likely sold well enough on their own without needing support.Miradre (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Do change the wording toometing that you find more precise.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

More sources

Apparently even some psychologists have a better grasp of evolutionary theory than Rushton:

• "Rushton's racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method. Anderson, Judith L. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, Vol 32(1), Jan 1991 51-62"
• Could r selection account for the African personality and life cycle? Edward M. Miller Personality and Individual Differences Volume 15, Issue 6, December 1993, Pages 665-675 ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that they are so old. Older than the book. The supporting research is much newer.Miradre (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What is interesting is that Rushton doesn't mention them, or take into account their critiques. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that?Miradre (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Show me where he does.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

[9][10]Miradre (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to ask that you quote the relevant sections of those articles. The abstracts are fairly opaque. aprock (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not have them. Which is irrelevant. That Rushton has replied is clear.Miradre (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid using sources that you don't have access to isn't something you can do on Wikipedia. aprock (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Which policy is that? Miradre (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Beyond simple common sense, please review WP:V. aprock (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing there. The question was if Rushton has replied to the studies mentioned above. That Rushton has done so is clear just from the names and abstracts.Miradre (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but you can't use sources which you don't have access to. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take your issue up at WP:RSN. aprock (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have access to the titles and abstracts which is enough for what I am claiming. I am not claiming anything more. WP:V requires that claims can be verified which is possible using the links. It does not state that one must have a full article when not making any claims about it. Please quote the relevant policy if disagreeing.Miradre (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think I'm wrong, and abstracts to primary sources qualify as reliable sources, take your complaint to WP:RSN. I'll be happy to abide by whatever the community has to say. aprock (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this logic should not the two sources mentioned at the top also be disqualified so this discussion becomes irrelevant? I hope there is no double standard so that only critical sources should be allowed but not supportive.Miradre (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're having trouble with policy interpretation, I suggest you go to the appropriate policy talk page or notice board. aprock (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If I am having trouble please enlighten me so we can avoid that. How am I wrong in thinking there is a double standard?Miradre (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to avoid seeking community input. Why would you want to avoid that? Regardless, at this point there seems little reason ton continue discussion here. If you wish to continue the discussion at the appropriate policy talk page or notice board, I'll be happy to participate. aprock (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I will do that.Miradre (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Mass deletion of peer-reviewed sources favorable to the book

See [11]. Yes, Rushton has done some of the studies. But there are many others involved. There is no reason for excluding even studies done only by Rusthong.Miradre (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit is fully justified. Some of the concerns have already been discussed to death above on this very talk page. You seem to be engaging in a bit of IDIDN'THEARTHAT and initiate endless and ultimately pointless discussion threads which lead nowhere, apparently in some kind of hope that you can just physically wear other editors out. The bottom line is that you can't have a section on "Critical reviews" and have it be full of works by the author who is supposed to be under review. A section like that is supposed to have OTHER, independent, sources.

The only non-Rushton source I saw in there was by Satoshi Kanazawa and that has obvious problems of its own and should not be used as a source in this (or any Wikipedia) article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What policy are you using for justifying deleting every favorable peer-reviewed study? There are over 30 authors involved.You deleted every study. Regardless of Rushton was man, co-author, or not even in the study.Miradre (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also your claim that there is only one non-Rushton source if false. See the studies by Figueredo and various colleagues. See the studies by Amigo and colleagues. See the studies by Veselka and colleagues. See the studies by Linden and colleagues. See the studies by Charles and Egan. See the studies by Kanazawa. See the studies by Voracek.Miradre (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, for the studies involving Rushton, there is no policy prohibiting citing further peer-reviewed evidence by the author of a theory.Miradre (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is about a book. The reviews should be about the book. They should not be a WP:COATRACK of studies, which YOU, think support the book's thesis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The cited studies support the book's theory. Mass deletion of practically every peer-reviewed study that does not fit your own POV, by over 30 different authors, is of course unacceptable.Miradre (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

They do not treat the subject of this article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the theory from the book was the focus of every one as was explained in the text.Miradre (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, again, there is of course no reason that further work by Rushton himself, published in a peer-reviewed journals should be disallowed. For example, why was this material removed? "Rushton (2004) argued that the theory was supported by relationships between brain weight and several other variables among 234 mammalian species: longevity (r = .70), gestation time (.72), birth weight (.44), litter size (-.43), age at first mating (.63), duration of lactation (.62), body weight (.44), and body length (.54). The relationship remained after controlling for body weight and body length. Looking 21 primate species, brain size still correlated .80 to .90 with life span, length of gestation, age of weaning, age of eruption of first molar, age at complete dentition, age at sexual maturity, inter-birth interval, and body weight."Miradre (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Once secondary and tertiary sources being to refer to those studies we will know that they are sufficiently relevant to include here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of the critical studies are "primary". Should they be removed? If you prefer we can create a section instead called "Later research based on the theory".Miradre (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetic mess

I would also like to suggest that the text is rewritten so that the block quotes - both pro and anti - can be removed. An encyclopedia article is not a newspaper advertisement which collects reviews.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the excessive quotation in the 'Critical responses' section is a bad idea. Tagging as such. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

=Comment by Dov Henis

Human Intelligence Is Highly Heritable And Polygenic ?

http://the-scientist.com/2011/08/09/heritability-of-intelligence/ http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201185a.html Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic.

No kidding!

So What else is new?!

It’s culture, reactions to circumstances, that drives genetic changes. NOT vice versa.

Reaction(s) to circumstances, modified state or behavior, that enhance-increase constrained energy in animate OR inanimate mass format, are retained. This is what evolution is all about. This is what natural selection is. It is postponement of the conversion of mass to energy, to the energy that keeps fueling the universe expansion. The expansion that will be overcome by gravity when most mass is reconverted to the energy that moves on the galaxies clusters. The expansion will then be replaced with gravitational empansion back to singularity…

The RNAs, Earth’s primal organisms, retain-constrain evolutionary energy as long as possible. This is what alternative splicing is about, this is what genetic inheritance is all about…

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century) http://universe-life.com/

PS: The deceased “the-scientist community forum” posted tens of articles on this general subject… See also http://www.freedolphin.com/?p=25 https://www.economist.com/user/3129364/comments Dov Henis (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Is Evolution Predictable

Of course it is. Nearly. Approximation, proportional to extent of included factors. And AFTER comprehending what evolution is…

A. Is Evolution Predictable http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/08/is-evolution-predictable.html?ref=em&elq=0e30965e9cc44cdd9bdc7df4669c78af

B. From DH comment on http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/70846/title/Missing_bits_of_DNA_may_define_humans

Origin And Nature Of Natural Selection

Life is another mass format, a self-replicating mass format. All mass formats are subject to natural selection. Natural selection is the delaying conversion of mass to the energy fueling cosmic expansion. Cosmic expansion is the reconversion of all the Big Bang singularity mass to energy.

Natural Selection Updated 2010, Beyond Historical Concepts:

Natural Selection applies to ALL mass formats. Life, a self-replicating format, is just one of them. Natural Selection Defined:

Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format. Period.

Natural selection is a ubiquitous property of each and every and all cosmic mass, spin array, formats, from the biggest black hole to the smallest physical particle. Mass strives to increase its constrained energy content in attempt to postpone its reconversion to energy and to postpone addition of its constitutional energy to the totality of the cosmic energy that fuels the cosmic expansion going on since Big Bang.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century) http://universe-life.com/ Dov Henis (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)