Talk:Mainstream Science on Intelligence

1999:

I and Level II abilities. Briefly, Level I consisted of the registration and recall of information involvinglittle if any transformation of the input; Level II involved transformation and mental manipulation of the input. Examples of Level I tasks are forward digit span memory and serial and paired-associate rote learning that does not depend on mnemonic strategies, Learning the alphabet, or the capitals of the 50 states, or simple arithmetic “facts“ is also largely Level I. In contrast, Level II tasks call for reasoning problem solving, the use of concepts, perceiving abstract relationships, generalization, and the like. Standard IQ tests for the most part typify Level II. It was discovered that children from high and low socioeconomic status (SES), and especially black and white children, on average, differ very much less in their performance on Level I tasks than on Level II tasks. Only a very moderate correlation of 0.3 to 0.4 was found between Levels I and II, and the correlation was lower among blacks. These findings seemed to suggest that instruction might be able to capitalize on Level I ability to improve the scholastic learning of children who have good Level I ability but are relatively low in Level II, or IQ.

1855:. Note in particular these sentences: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." "The burden of evidence for any edit on Knowledge rests with the person who adds or restores material." "To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor ::wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Knowledge's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article." 1967:

Overview, offers a tour de force not just of his own remarkable career but also of still-neglected areas of assessment validity. Campbell demonstrates how outcome criteria can create sources of bias in assessment and also revisits the muititrait-multimethod approach to establishing validity. He shows how failure to attend to the methodology of assessment can severely limit validity. Always a methodological and cultural activist, Campbell shows the potential glories of assessment tools properly applied and also the limitations of measurement that does not take methodology seriously. Unfortunately for psychology in general and for assessment in particular, Donald T. Campbell died of complications of cancer surgery during the final editing of the articles in this series. His many contributions to the betterment of psychological assessment and measurement are so much a part of psychology'smethodology that it is difficult to imagine an area of psychology not in his debt.

1504:, then we accept it. Indeed several secondary sources repeat Jensen's suggestions (Tucker 2002, Tucker 1996, Pumfrey & Verma 1990, etc). The place where he wrote it for the first time is in his 1969 HER paper. These are usually called level I (ability to learn by rote) and level II (ability to think about concepts abstractly), but Campbell and the authors avoid the technical terms; so we do to. After all it is not the job of wikipedians themselves to give commentaries on a random book or paper of Jensen (the significance or validity of which we are unable to assess) or to pick quotes from them. They authors of the secondary sources are the experts, not us. The same statement is mentioned in the posthumous paper of 1021:, many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported. This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. It's aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. (pg.13) 2331:

same article claims that the entire hereditarian/environmentalist dispute on IQ differences was settled by a paper of his from 1970 (somehow the rest of the world hasn't noticed). And the quotation above indicates that he abused his office to invite personal attacks on Jensen. Do you want Richard Lynn or the like as the sole individual opinion cited in the lead of Knowledge articles on psychometric topics? He does have some critical reviews on the Minnesota adoption studies, sex differences in IQ and so forth.

2162:- Campbell's article was inconsequential on this subject and is not cited in later arguments about the role of environment (or genetics) in IQ differences. He wrote it shortly before dying and it purports to settle the entire hereditarian-environmentalist debate in a couple of paragraphs citing only his 1970 theoretical response to Jensen and a 1995 article by others supposedly corroborating his theory. "Big if true", the lack of citation by later environmentalists tells you how this played out. 2108:, 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 1867:

year announced that on the following day I was to deliver an invited address on bias in mental testing, which was the main subject of my research during that period. At the Open Meeting, the preceding evening, the then APA President, Donald Campbell, said he agreed that I should be banned as an invited speaker at any future APA conventions; he also disparaged my “IQ,” and said he hoped that there would be a great many attending my address and that there would be plenty of hissing and booing!

1344:

analysis of the letter is fine. If the source discussed the paper in this way, it's not up to us to give our opinion on the pros and cons. This is what the commentators have said about the one page newspaper article and its later appearance as an editorial and that is what we report. If commentators dcide to enlarge the discussion, I'm afraid we can't do anything about that. The fact that you have come to this page and another on the invitation of Captain Occam is not a good sign.

856:. The only conceivable reason for mentioning the researchers' previous grants from the Pioneer Fund in this context, especially at the beginning of a section labeled "Controversy", is to insinuate we cannot trust the judgment of scientists who have ever accepted money from the Pioneer Fund. The text as it stands does not cite any notable commentator who mentions the signatories' grantee status as an argument against their impartiality. The argument, as it is now, is 327: 1030:(Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) was at its height in the fall of 1994. Many critics attacked the book for supposedly relying on outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence. In criticizing the book, many critics promoted false and highly misleading views about the scientific study of intelligence. Public miseducation on the topic is hardly new (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988), but never before had it been so angry and extreme. (pg.17) 1715:. Would you kindly cite the passages in it where he advocates what Campbell claims he does? While some commentators may have maliciously interpreted Jensen that way, it does not mean that it is what Jensen really said. Jensen may have thought that a larger percentage of black kids than white kids would benefit from e.g. rote learning, but the categorical "one thing for blacks, another for whites" separation suggested by Campbell is nonsense.-- 243: 348: 222: 1706:"If diversity of mental abilities, as of most other human characteristics, is a basic fact of nature, as the evidence indicates, and if the ideal of universal education is to be successfully pursued, it seems a reasonable conclusion that schools and society must provide a range and diversity of educational methods, programs, and goals, and of occupational opportunities, just as wide as the range of human abilities." 541: 514: 1815:. Unlike the HER article, the bit you now linked to clearly suggests that Jensen once (but no longer) thought that the Level I/Level II difference could be used to decrease the black-white discrepancy in scholastic achievement, presumably by emphasizing rote learning with black students (unfortunately the Google books preview cuts the argument short). Now I think the Campbell quote is OK as it is.-- 1747:: that's not how wikipedia is edited. It's not clear why any editors here would want to read what is essentially just your personal view point. It might verge on covert racism (from a quick look at your editing record), but is irrelevant for editing wikipedia. The important point is that you and I are lowly wikipedians whose views do not get reflected in wikipedia articles (that would be 1042:, no where does she say that it was written as a support for the findings of the same. If this had been the intent, it is highly unlikely that so many respected experts would have signed the statement at such short notice. Instead, it was, as the author points out, a statement directed at clarifying the misconceptions being tossed about as established fact in the popular media. 446: 428: 191: 2116:, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. One thing to keep in mind is that the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" editorial, as this article makes clear, didn't speak for all psychologists, and what the signers thought in 1994 in reaction to press reports at that time may not be what the living signers think today about the same issues. -- 1789: 1991: 253: 648:: Knowledge 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 628:. 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. 2047:, one of the cosignatories, had recommended the policy of rote learning for blacks and conceptual problem solving for whites." That could have been changed to "rote learning for those with lower intelligence". Editing on normal articles isn't done by blanking sourced content. That is a sign of disruptive editing and a 2141:

According to a 1996 response by former American Psychological Association president Donald Campbell, more than four-fifths of the signatories were not measurement experts, and, contrary to the letter's claims, "environmental differences between Blacks and Whites in opportunity to learn the vocabulary

1866:

For example, I (Jensen) can’t recall another psychologist beside myself who has the unique distinction of ever having been openly denounced by a presiding president of the APA. This occurred in 1976 at the APA’s Open Meeting traditionally held at its annual convention. The convention program for that

1763:

and perfect for wikipedia, whether editors like you personally agree with them or not. I think writing "maliciously interpreted" is an example of you getting carried away with yourself. It's an overly dramatic reaction to what appears to be a rather simple statement of fact about Level I and Level II

1662:

My interpretation at present is that Chmara and Kane don't wish it to be made public on wikipedia that Jensen published statements of this kind. But he did and that is a matter of record (his 1969 HER paper). His proposals were repeated many times by reputable comentators and of course that is one of

1542:

MathSci: Please provide the evidence that Victor Chmara is asking for. You have mistakenly interpreted these secondary sources in the past. Perhaps you are making a similar mistake here? Note, also, that a clearly erroneous claim, even if published in a secondary source, does not belong in Knowledge.

820:

It's a pretty transparent attempt to use Knowledge to promote a particular point of view, in this case an attack on the document by claiming its authors were biased by funding sources. I only glanced at the article and immediately knew that part was marked up by a POV pusher, and so came to the talk

2233:

Looking a few threads above on this page it looks like Campbell was not a disinterested party offering his dispassionate opinion, and in any case it's not clear why he is singled out from all the many people who commented on the letter to offer a special one-man rebuttal in the lead. There is ample

2004:

This is fairly explicit. Serial rote learning was one of Jensen's main preoccupations throughout his career. As far as BLP violations are concerned (a) Donald T. Campbell has a spotless academic reputation (b) his published remarks are not libellous (c) what he asserted as Jensen's recommendations

1998:

Level I and Level II Abilities. Twenty years ago I (Jensen 1968) presented evidence that two distinct classes of cognitive tasks show an interaction with social class andrace (i.e., black-white). Individual differences in performance on the two types of tasks were attributed to what was termed Level

1097:

After more than a week with no response, I went ahead and made the changes presented above. I also added a new section which summarizes the findings of the statement. If comments on or criticism of the statement can be sourced, then please add it in a new section ("Reception" might be an appropriate

921:

The title makes it seem like this article really represents the official mainstream scientific view on this subject, and that is disputed. The information about the Pioneer fund shows that the validity of this document and the way that it was produced isn't universally accepted. It makes the article

1876:

makes clear that extra-ordinary claims require clear proof. It is not enough for us to show that Campbell said that Jensen believes that all blacks should be educated different from all whites. We need evidence that, in truth, Jensen believes this. (In fact, I think that Jensen believes that low IQ

1625:

apply. I have read many criticisms of Jensen, but I had not previously heard this particular claim. Jensen has never shied away from speaking his mind on controversial topics, so it shouldn't be difficult to find a relevant quote from Jensen, if such exist. The claim seems out of character for him,

1179:

I don’t have a problem with there being a “criticism” section in general, as long as it isn’t synth like the previous section about this that was removed by Varoon Arya. But it shouldn’t include only negative reactions to the article, particularly when describing the views of some authors (such as

863:

Like Rikurzhen said, this is no better than flagging a list of authors as Jewish to not-so-quietly imply that the opinions of Jews cannot be trusted. Imagine the absurdity of pointing out which of Gottfredson's critics have African ancestry, adding links to reliable sources where they claim African

1908:

and there accepted that you were wrong, You are now repeating he same argument here. In this case as explained above, there is no BLP violation, Such editing is tendentious and disruptive (repeating the same argument which you yourself have conceded was wrong elsewhere). There is no extraordinary

1189:

Are you willing to change these things, or allow me to change them? Every other time I’ve been involved in an article where the “criticism” section was longer than the body of the article, when I’ve requested assistance from other editors about this at the NPOV noticeboard, they’ve agreed with me

2330:

Campbell is partisan and somewhat cranky on this issue, the equivalent of Richard Lynn with the polarity inverted. His article proudly reminds us that he called for a moratorium on intelligence testing until his own out-of-mainstream ideas could be implemented in an accompanying counter-test. The

2081:

One primary problem with this field of study that goes beyond the flawed methods, skewed results and clear teleology is the obvious ethical problem. Science should at least make some effort at objectivity, but devising theories claiming to 'prove that the group historically responsible for racial

1984:

Level I processes are essentially associative and are best measured by tests such as digit span and serial rote learning; Level II processes involve transformations or complex operations performed on the stimulus input and are perhaps best represented in tests such as the Progressive Matrices and

1935:

now says "they should be taught by relying on their ability to associate rather than understand, i.e. learning by rote, not through conceptual explanation." In that sentence, the "they" refers (albeit not as clearly as I would like) to low IQ students. And that is correct! Jensen did believe (and

1589:

is an expanded version of the parts of the 1969 article (according to the reviews) and does indeed discuss Level I and Level II learning in this context. However, it's not our job to check whether Donald T. Campbell was misrepresenting the book or not. All evidence suggests otherwise, but that is

1446:

BLP on Jensen: if Jensen wrote and somebody quotes it, that is completely allowable, No violation of BLP al all. He wrote it also in 1969. Numerous people have quoted this is books and articles. Perhaps you could explain exactly which BLP violation you're referring to. Numerous academics have put

2434:. It was removed but my rationale for adding it is context, helping to understand why it has received a lot of academic criticism (its definition of "race" and its undue emphasis on genetic inheritance of intelligence, extending to groups larger than the family and smaller than homo sapiens). — 2229:

The letter claims its 52 signatories are experts in intelligence research and allied fields. Campbell says that few of them were expert in "measurement theory", which is not "intelligence testing" as the lead now says, but the parallel development in psychology and psychometrics of quantitative

2172:

articles on the grounds of FRINGE. But the Mainstream Science letter has never been characterized as fringe (in any RS), nor does it take a position on genetic causation or lack thereof, which is the issue Knowledge RfC's on this address. So there is nothing requiring a rebuttal of any sort.

1957:

I have re-added a version of the last comment by Campbell. If David.Kane wants to argue that it is a BLP violation, he should do that directly on the ArbCom pages: that would seem to be his only choice of forum at this stage. That applies equally well to any other editors. There is no convincing

1580:

in a reliable secondary source by Luis Laosa. All that matters on WP is that Campbell made such a statement; that is borne out by the second primary source, the posthumous article of Donald T. Campbell. Now you seem to be questioning whether Donald T. Campbell was correct in his assertion. Which

1966:

The final article in this series holds special and poignant significance. Few psychologists have contributed as much to the development of contemporary assessment theory and practiceas Donald T. Campbell. His article in this series, Unresolved Issues in Measurement Validity: An Autobiographical

1829:

I'm glad that at least the issues with "Level I/II learning" have now been clarified. There are all sorts of anecdotes from the turbulent 70's and nobody in particular came off in a very good light. I am happy that we are in agreement now about the content and can let this matter drop. Cheers,

1343:

Please don't remove sourced edits. Look at the commentary in the sources - they all record a slightly longer version of what I've what I've written. And there is no need to quote Campbell directly. The commentary refers directly to his draft letter and that is fine. Certainly using an experts's

1667:

was not misrepresenting in any way what Jensen had written. Chmara decided to choose unneutral phrasing which implied that Campbell was misrepresenting Jensen. That is called POV-pushing and is frowned upon. If users have strong personal views about individuals that lead them to wikilawyer and

739:

Sternberg, Flynn, and Tucker didn't sign this statement, so their perspectives are not relevant to this article. Rushton himself noted the PF connection: "In response to what they felt was a superficial and misleading treatment of The Bell Curve by the mass media, fifty-two scholars (including

1787:

Although I won't engage in your circular arguments, here for example - contradicting your claims about what Jensen has written about level I and II learning - is what Jensen wrote himself retrospectively (page 355-356 in Arthur Jensen, consensus and controversy, eds.Sohan & Celia Modgil).

1190:

that this was a problem. I may end up doing the same thing in this case if you aren’t willing to accept that there’s anything wrong with the current article. But it would be nice if, for once, you could allow your edits to an article to be changed without it requiring any amount of drama. --

1858:

With that as background, I am about to delete the section about Donald Campbell's claims about Arthur Jensen. The key sentence is this quote from Campbell: "Arthur R. Jensen, one of the cosigners of the article, has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites: Rote learning for one,

782:

Yeah, there would need to be a "good" reason to mention PF grantees in *this* article. The Rushton piece is about PF specifically, but the relevance relationship is not symmetrical. As a rhetorically-charged example, it would not be appropriate to prominently asterick the Jewish researchers.

2237:

The SPLC material as currently written implies that up to 20 people who signed the letter may be white supremacists or puppets of such, which is also UNDUE. Bouchard for example was funded for twin studies. If you delete "white supremacist" and the SPLC (which is only there to allow "white

2222:

According to a 1996 response by former American Psychological Association president Donald Campbell, only ten of those who signed were actual experts in intelligence testing. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that 20 of the signers were recipients of funding from the white-supremacist

2020:

So much drama! MathSci: I have no objection to this edit because it is true. Jensen did, in fact, write "policy recommendations concerning rote learning." If you would work collaboratively with other editors, we could make a lot more progress. (Editors new to this debate can find background

2196:

I believe I have addressed each of these points in my recent edits, except for the point about the APA report. That report does not mention Gottfredson's letter, so it would be inappropriate to include it here as some sort of response -- unless you know of a reliable secondary source that

1958:

evidence that Campbell was malicious or unprofessional: indeed all evidence is that he was an extremely distinguished academic psychologist. The posthumous paper has been cited several times for making important points. Here for example is a published peer-reviewed comment on the paper

1812:, because you clearly are not aware of this policy. I have read much of Jensen's work, and many criticisms of him, but this specific accusation was new to me, so I wanted to get to the bottom of it, particularly in light of Donald Campbell's history of personal attacks against Jensen 2277:

because Black-white differences were not referred to earlier in the lede. But the lede is supposed to summarize the main body, not summarize the earlier parts of the lede, and the main body certainly deals with that topic. I won't respond to all the illogical claims that fill your

1768:

and find much support for it there. But on wikipedia, it is entirely unsourceable in the literature, just you own personal interpretation. Why is that of the slightest interest to anybody editing here? Please stop using this page to make outrageous claims about eminent scientists.

2340:

If you feel that the purpose of Knowledge article ledes is to function as an amplifier for whatever the SPLC position is on any particular subject where there is one, just say so. You would be very, very far from alone in that view! But it is not a way to write an encyclopedia.

1871:

To be clear, I am not denying that Campbell made these claims about Jensen, nor that Laosa has accurately reported the claims that Campbell made. And, if Jensen were dead, this would be enough to justify the inclusion. But I have doubts (say, 25%) that what Campbell says is true.

2234:

space for this in the body of the article and it would make most sense to either say (1) nothing in the lead, or (2) mention the Neisser APA report, or (3) briefly summarize the totality of responses as exemplified in the body of the article. Cherrypicking Campbell is UNDUE.

1140:

I have found a number of new secondary sources for this article and have been busy today preparing a new NPOV version. That is why the tags have been restored. In the early evening, when I was on the point of adding the new material, things were interrupted, primarily due to

2059:, a psychologist probably more eminent than Jensen, published malicious falsehoods about Jensen. That was not the case and you had absolutely no reason for supposing it to be true. Anyway this is not the venue to discuss these matters: let's leave that to the ArbCom case. 1985:

Cattell's Culture-Fair Test ... Equally important is the discovery or invention of instructional methods that engage Level I more fully and provide thereby a means of improving the educational attainments of many of the children now called culturally disadvantaged.

1308:

Harrison's argument about IQ research and policy decisions is bizarre. Firstly, the Mainstream statement does not claim that the research has not been or will not be used to support policy positions. What it says instead that you can't derive values from facts (see

2230:

methods that also appeared in economics and statistics. You don't have to be a measurement expert to be an expert in "intelligence and allied fields" and the introduction is SYNTHing the implication that the letter misrepresented the expertise of the signers.

1703:

The controversy about Jensen's HER article was never about him supposedly advocating segregated schooling. It was about the fact that Jensen suggested that genetic differences may partly explain the black-white IQ gap. This is what Jensen wrote in the article:

728:

Marking researchers who have received grants when the funded work isn't under discussion seems to give undue implied prominence to a perspective that's contrary to the perspectives of environmental professionals like Sternberg, Flynn, and Tucker (ask for

2176:

With all of that said, it would be sensible to state (in the lead) that the letter triggered many replies and some academic controversy. There is no need to give it the blustering-refutation-on-the-spot treatment or to cite Campbell for that.

1320:

Instead of citing Laosa on Campbell, Campbell should be cited directly. Furthermore, I doubt that the claim about Jensen is correct, and in any case it is not really relevant as Jensen was just one of 52 signatories. I removed the bit about him.

1226:

Everything represents the sources, so I don't quite see why anything has to be changed. It's quite surprising people had so much say about a one page newspaper article. Varoon Arya's additions - even his summary of the article - was non neutral.

153: 2180:

There have been 3 consecutive delete/revert cycles about this lately, so apparently just going ahead and removing the Campbell sentence until something better comes along would lead to more of the same. Hence this talk page post.

1903:

What you are writing is incorrect and in this case you are already quite aware of that. You made exactly the same spurious claims about the Jensen's well documented recommendation of "rote learning for blacks" in another article

1160:

I have completely rewritten the many part of the article, giving brief forms of the 25 conclusions (taken from Harrington's paper) and have added as many secondary sources as I could find, which are used in the criticism section.

1585:. On the other hand at the moment you are presumably aware of 2 things (a) the statement of Campbell is indentical to part of the statement of Tucker which is confirmed by the refs he gave to the 1969 article (b) the 1972 book 903:

Please elaborate. The title of this Knowledge article is the same as the title of its subject. What would you prefer it be called? And what does this have to do with whether Pioneer Fund grantees should be marked as such? --

1936:

write) that low IQ students should be taught differently than high IQ students. In other words, the complaints that I had about that article are the same (more or less) as the ones that I have here. 3) Do you conceded that

1077:"represents the side of the debate that supports the claims and conclusions by Herrnstein and Murray." This is gross misrepresentation of the intent of the author and the co-signers as described in the text itself. 2261:. Because he refused to sign the letter? Because he disagreed with Gottfredson about racial hereditarianism? Because he disliked Jensen? Should critics of the letter be disqualified because they strongly oppose 1672:. But in this case a vety eminient scientist made the statement in print. That's all. He repeated what he had read in print. No editors have included "exceptional claims", which is what that statement is about. 2165:- sources that discuss responses to the Mainstream Science letter invariably cite the Neisser et al APA report, not Campbell. If there is to be such a pointer in the lede it should be to the APA report. 1648:

I have rewritten the paragraph, since having found the second secondary source later in the day, it seemed more straightforward just to use that. There are no BLP violations, because the content is from a

2148:

This is posited as some sort of rebuttal to the Gottfredson letter (insofar as it talks about black-white IQ differences) and is elaborated later in the article. There are several problems with this.

1351:- no attempt to examine the sources at all. If Harrington gives his argument like that, why does your personal point of view matter? Please can you stick to wikipedia editing editing policies? Thanks, 1045:

If I have overlooked something, then I am certainly willing to reconsider my opinion. But as it stands, I see the statement in question as a misrepresentation of the facts which needs to be corrected.

600:. 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. 1594:

is beautifully produced but contains profane passages, we report that without having access to the incunabulum and verifying where the profane passages occur (if at all) or examining the state of the

492: 2317:

was in fact a non sequitur, by removing it. We are now discussing the revision, with different material from Campbell. Are you arguing to put the old material back in again? If not, you are

1381:. Hauser discusses Gottfredson 1997b, which is a separate article from the statement, and should not be confused with it. The article gave the mistaken impression that the statement relies on 44: 1909:

claim - that is just your own very extreme personal point of view. Please stop coming to this article edit war with no intention of discussing content. That is totally unhelpful behaviour.

752:

A footnote would be fine, but there's not a basis in the literature for this article to imply accepting a grant biases researchers for the rest of their lives on whatever they comment on.--

147: 711: 560: 665: 2082:

oppression in the US are intellectually 'superior' to the group that has been historically oppressed suggests an obvious conflict of interest. No black academics support this position.

1630:. In his article, Campbell does not even cite any work by Jensen, whereas Laosa cites a 400-page book without giving a page number. It's clear that these are not exceptional sources.-- 558:, 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 1301:

is also irrelevant here. The validity, reliability, heritability, etc. of IQ do not require one to subscribe to the theory of general intelligence. Therefore, I removed references to

1460:

The section by Robert Hauser is his own commentary and synthesis. Removing the link to the secondary source and its synthesis is unhelpful for the article and the reader. Thanks,

1313:). Moreover, the "explicit references by the US Congress to the statements of Charles Murray when framing social policy" are almost certainly about Murray's influential 1984 book 2528: 486: 761:

The article makes no claims of bias on the part of recipients, but the Pioneer Fund connection was notable enough to be referenced by the president of the fund himself.

2476: 1668:

misquote wikipedia policies to justify the removal of various bits of chronicled history, perhaps they should not be editing this encyclopedia. Chmara wrote above that

2109: 1932: 1905: 1569: 1180:

Carroll) whose views are more nuanced than you’ve made them out to be; and the criticism section also shouldn’t overwhelm the rest of the article as it currently does.

1080:

Again, if I have overlooked something, then I remain willing to change my mind. But, without some clarification, these are errors which require correction. Thanks, --

1212:

Thanks to MathSci for many excellent additions to this article. Occam: I encourage you to make additions as well. More well-sourced material is always a good thing.

985:

The article listed 25 statements from intelligence research and which were claimed to support the findings associated with race and intelligence within the book,

2142:

and other skills used in intelligence tests are adequate to explain Black-White differences in test scores, without any need for positing genetic differences.

2533: 1049:

Related to this is the other major fault in this article, as I see it: the section "Controversy". As far as I can tell, this section has nothing to do with

638:

are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their

2513: 2498: 2105: 1602:, which is not allowed on wikipedia. In the same way, even if you or I had access to a copy of Jensen's book, that would be useless, because we'd be doing 524:

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.

410: 400: 309: 299: 2363:

No, I have no problem accepting the compromise that removed part (not all) of what Campbell said from the lede. Your intemperate personal attacks on him (

1931:

before. I now see that it has very strict requirements with regard to living persons. So allowances I may have made in previous discussions are moot. 2)

79: 1972:

I have no idea on what basis David.Kane leaves all but the last of the points, but rejects that one as invalid. I would presume it's a simply a case of

462: 2523: 2518: 2503: 864:

ancestry, and arguing for the text's inclusion on the ground that it's "sourced information". This text is exactly the sort of unattributed opinion

1976:. It is very easy to verify that Jensen did make recommendations about rote learning thoughout his career. For example here in Proc. NAS article 168: 135: 710:

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

376: 275: 85: 2508: 2493: 453: 433: 1069:, I see no justification for the inclusion of the material contained in this section, other than perhaps as background information on why 2159:- Campbell's statement does not " the letter's claims" but that is asserted in Wikivoice, mischaracterizing the subject of the article. 1959: 1979:, speaking of his theory of Level I abilities (associative, rote learning) - Level II abilities (cognitive, conceptual), Jensen writes: 1860: 1813: 1257:

I’ll get to this soon, but right now I’m a little too occupied with everything that’s going on in the race and intelligence article. --

555: 24: 1447:

these statements with the exact quotes (usually from his 1969 paper) into books. I can't see how you can seriously pursue this point.

1324:

In general, some of the claims in the criticism section may represent fringe views in intelligence research, and should not be given

610:

and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or

941: 740:

fourteen who had received Pioneer support and thirty-eight who had not) signed a statement published in The Wall Street Journal..."

129: 1764:

learning. It might be possible to write the kind of outrageous claim you just made on a far right white supremacist website like

355: 332: 266: 227: 2022: 125: 99: 30: 2112:

through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the

1713: 947:

Despite your claims to the contrary, the information about the Pioneer Fund is simply not sourced, and must be removed under

104: 20: 1809: 1712:, does not suggest "rote-learning for blacks, conceptual problem solving for whites". Jensen's article's is available here 997:. I've read the work in question, and I would like for someone to point out exactly which passage supports the claim that 649: 175: 74: 1369:

Please refrain from personal attacks. No need for that. Firstly, the mainstream statement says absolutely nothing about

937: 527: 521: 202: 1884:, do not add back in this material until consensus has been reached. I will bring this controversy to the attention of 1581:

precise piece of wikipedia policy is involved this time? We can't really read the book to check can we? That would be

1508:. Please explain your own personal problem a little more carefully, with reference to wikipedia editing policies.you 1424:. If you for some reason think that what Jensen really said is relevant to the article, please find a better source.-- 657: 65: 2043:

removing this sentence: "Campbell also pointed out that as far as influence on policy was concerned, already in 1972

2402:, until you can behave like a grownup, no one should be expected to engage with you on substance. Your recourse to 2121: 375:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2156:. Nowhere preceding the quotation from Campbell is there any mention of blacks, whites, race or group differences 1739:. No time will be spent debating phrases you've chosen from a 123 page document by Jensen in a futile attempt to 2461: 2411: 2206: 642:

is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

936:, whose title suggests the article really is about the origin of species. Or, even worse, look at the titles of 141: 1293:. I would guess that Gottfredson knew that some potential signatories did not accept the biological reality of 1859:

conceptual problem solving for the other." I consider this "poorly sourced" because of Campbell's documented

1663:

the reasons he became the centre of a controversy for a number of years. The very distinguished psychologist

2431: 2283: 1977: 1820: 1720: 1669: 1635: 1627: 1491: 1429: 1420:

Finally, some third-hand claim about what Jensen supposedly advocated in 1972 is certainly not in line with

1333: 1262: 1195: 944:, both on books that deny the Holocaust. If titles of this form are biased, what alternative do you suggest? 932:

Articles on works with controversial titles inherit their titles. If this is biased, then so is the article

109: 2039:

No drama, just sources and information. Let's just remember that SPA editing on this page recommenced with

1877:

students should be educated differently from high IQ students, but that is not the same thing, obviously.)

848:

Seeing no opposition to the text's removal in over a year, I removed the text and was promptly reverted by

2440: 2346: 2279: 2243: 2186: 2048: 852:

with the comment "please don't remove sourced information". The text I removed is a textbook violation of

2472: 2453: 2287: 2169: 2117: 1973: 1486:

Give me the exact quote from Jensen where he says that rote learning is for blacks and not for whites.--

1348: 1105: 1087: 933: 208: 1940:

insists that the material under dispute be removed from the article until we have had time to discuss?

795:

since it's in here, it seems it would help readers to show which of the signatories received funding.

2457: 2407: 2380: 2295: 2202: 2030: 1945: 1893: 1765: 1548: 1217: 1123: 661: 190: 893:

It's mentioned for the sake of context. The title of this article is misleading enough without it.

703: 161: 55: 2446: 2415: 2384: 2350: 2299: 2247: 2210: 2190: 2125: 2091: 2068: 2034: 2014: 1949: 1918: 1897: 1824: 1799: 1778: 1724: 1690: 1639: 1615: 1552: 1517: 1495: 1469: 1433: 1360: 1337: 1266: 1236: 1221: 1199: 1170: 1154: 1127: 1109: 1091: 970: 926: 915: 897: 879: 825: 799: 787: 765: 756: 747: 733: 461:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

274:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2056: 2040: 1816: 1756: 1716: 1664: 1631: 1577: 1505: 1487: 1425: 1329: 1310: 1258: 1191: 965: 910: 874: 695: 653: 70: 2406:

is self-defeating and for that reason alone far less clever than I think you'd like to believe.

2435: 2399: 2342: 2262: 2239: 2182: 2064: 2010: 1914: 1835: 1795: 1774: 1686: 1611: 1573: 1513: 1465: 1356: 1232: 1166: 1150: 753: 730: 258: 51: 2468: 2087: 1402:. We absolutely must not report all the irrelevant digressions that the sources may contain. 1099: 1081: 347: 326: 590:) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. 2376: 2291: 2254: 2113: 2026: 1941: 1889: 1885: 1752: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1544: 1411:

I modified the Harrison on Murray bit to better match what the statement and Harrison say.

1399: 1213: 1119: 923: 894: 849: 796: 762: 744: 714:. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. 565:

described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

2104:

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of

2052: 1709: 1325: 784: 679: 675: 625: 607: 573: 458: 955:

board is sourced, so we will have to decide whether mentioning this is a violation of

2487: 2372: 2044: 1937: 1928: 1881: 1873: 1852: 1622: 1421: 1395: 961: 956: 948: 906: 870: 865: 853: 822: 699: 691: 687: 639: 635: 611: 368: 364: 743:

When I do the APA statement we can mention two of them received Pioneer Fund money.

513: 2060: 2006: 1910: 1831: 1791: 1770: 1760: 1748: 1682: 1650: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1582: 1509: 1501: 1500:

Why do you ask and why do you ask so impolitely? If this statement is written in a

1461: 1352: 1228: 1162: 1146: 615: 586: 581: 598:"facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources" 2238:

supremacist" to be stated) then mentioning Pioneer in the lead seems DUE enough.

1005:. I do not believe such a passage can be found. Below, I quote those sections of 821:

page to find out... surprise, surprise; I was right. It has now been removed. --

2083: 1595: 1591: 683: 577: 242: 221: 614:

about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to

2100:

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

372: 271: 248: 2051:

mentality. To remove the quote, you had to create drama by forum shopping at

1053:, but is instead a short collection of random bits of information related to 1142: 1568:(unindent) Didn't you spend a week arguing over exactly the same point on 2290:

on this and other pages is just creating a time sink for the rest of us.

1073:

was written. I also see no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that

741: 2273:. You claim that the sentence about the Campbell statement itself is a 1317:, which has nothing to do with IQ testing. I removed Harrison's claim. 360: 2114:

Knowledge standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles

445: 427: 1576:. In this case the same statement is reported from a draft letter of 1297:, so she did not include it in the statement. Schlinger's comment on 1590:

irrelevant. In exactly the same way if a historian comments that an

1289:. However, the Mainstream Science statement itself does not discuss 959:. Hopefully other editors will join in and help reach consensus. -- 2168:- editors have been attaching rebuttals of this sort in numerous 922:

more balenced. Furthermore, it is sourced and directly relavent.

2282:, since, like other editors, I'm concerned that your persistent 1626:

and it is inconsistent with his scientific views. Remember that

535: 508: 184: 15: 2223:

organization the Pioneer Fund, including Gottfredson herself.

1621:

Jensen is alive and kicking, so the heightened standards of

539: 1755:). However, the published views of eminent academics like 981:

Currently, this article contains the following statement:

1888:. With luck, they will be able to provide some guidance. 1377:

here. Nor does Hauser claim that the statement relies on

2005:

were published in many places from the mid-60s onwards.

1784:

I note that you came here on another user's suggestion.

2313:

Apparently Generalrelative agreed that what I called a

1785: 1681:

I don't recommend that users continue this discussion.

1345: 1285:

The criticism section cites Hauser and Gottfredson on

1034:

While the author points out that the controversy over

160: 618:

of the primary-source material by Knowledge editors.

457:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 359:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 270:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 951:. The information about signatories sitting on the 793:

I didn't add the first instance of PF referral, but

690:); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the 1847:BLP and claims about Jensen attributed to Campbell 491:This article has not yet received a rating on the 2452:That makes sense! I've restored the reference to 2304:Histrionic, unresponsive, combative : pick three. 1933:History of the race and intelligence controversy 1906:History of the race and intelligence controversy 1570:History of the race and intelligence controversy 1001:was written as a defence of the findings of the 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2216:The Campbell paragraph in the intro now reads: 1996: 1982: 1964: 1708:This position, nowadays identified mainly with 1347:At present the reasons you have given are just 1315:Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 1024: 1015: 983: 1670:exceptional claims require exceptional sources 1628:exceptional claims require exceptional sources 678:. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies ( 2321:with no actionable outcome even contemplated. 2265:? You say that Campbell signed the statement 1394:Secondly, the content of the article must be 174: 8: 2131:Non sequitur in lede (Campbell 1996 article) 2269:, as if that should discredit it. That's a 596:: Knowledge defines "original research" as 550:Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence 2529:Unknown-importance Discrimination articles 1038:served as the occasion for the writing of 422: 321: 216: 606:: Knowledge articles should be based on 702:over articles; or otherwise to prevent 424: 323: 218: 188: 2368: 2364: 2318: 2266: 2258: 1990:And here is what Jensen wrote in 1989 1572:? There you questioned the writing of 1606:, which is not allowed on wikipedia. 1373:, so there is no reason to criticize 993:As a source for this claim, it cites 977:The Bell Curve and other inaccuracies 674:: Tag teams work in unison to push a 608:reliable, published secondary sources 7: 1880:Following the procedure laid out in 471:Knowledge:WikiProject Discrimination 451:This article is within the scope of 353:This article is within the scope of 264:This article is within the scope of 2534:WikiProject Discrimination articles 694:or to violate behavioural norms by 474:Template:WikiProject Discrimination 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2514:Low-importance Skepticism articles 2499:Mid-importance psychology articles 1075:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 1071:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 1059:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 1051:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 1040:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 1007:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 999:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 995:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 584:. Those founding principles (the 556:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 25:Mainstream Science on Intelligence 14: 2257:make no sense. You say that he's 942:The Hoax of the Twentieth Century 1385:, so I removed the Hauser stuff. 512: 444: 426: 385:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism 346: 325: 284:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology 251: 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2524:C-Class Discrimination articles 2519:WikiProject Skepticism articles 2504:WikiProject Psychology articles 405:This article has been rated as 388:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 304:This article has been rated as 287:Template:WikiProject Psychology 2447:19:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2416:23:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2385:16:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2351:15:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2300:11:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2248:04:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) 2211:17:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2191:08:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 2077:No black academics signed this 624:: Knowledge strives towards a 1: 1927:1) I had not closely studied 1810:Knowledge:No personal attacks 572:: Knowledge articles must be 465:and see a list of open tasks. 379:and see a list of open tasks. 278:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2135:The introduction ends thus: 1128:13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1110:09:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1092:01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 826:05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC) 2509:C-Class Skepticism articles 2494:C-Class psychology articles 2477:02:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 2430:This is specifically about 2253:Your attempts to discredit 2126:15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 2092:00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 971:12:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 938:Did Six Million Really Die? 927:03:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 916:03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 898:02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 880:02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 868:was written to exclude. -- 800:00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 788:23:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 766:23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 757:23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 748:22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 734:22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 706:prevailing – is prohibited. 561:active arbitration remedies 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2550: 2371:) are unconstructive, see 2201:describes it in this way. 454:WikiProject Discrimination 411:project's importance scale 310:project's importance scale 2259:not a disinterested party 2069:03:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 2035:01:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 2015:23:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 1862:antipathy toward Jensen. 1851:I have recently reviewed 1502:reliable secondary source 1017:Since the publication of 698:; or to attempt to exert 490: 439: 404: 341: 303: 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2467:Makes sense to me, too. 2456:as a separate sentence. 1950:14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1919:14:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1898:13:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1825:11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1800:09:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1779:09:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1725:08:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1691:23:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 1640:18:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 1616:15:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 1553:14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 1518:10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 1496:08:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 1470:15:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 1434:14:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 1361:12:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 1338:12:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 1267:21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1237:17:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1222:14:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1200:21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC) 1171:06:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC) 1155:20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC) 1065:written as a defense of 676:particular point of view 658:assumptions of bad faith 2365:crankyabused his office 666:disruptive point-making 636:Single purpose accounts 632:Single purpose accounts 477:Discrimination articles 2110:suggesting new sources 2106:Intelligence Citations 2001: 1987: 1969: 1869: 1587:Genetics and education 1032: 1023: 991: 604:Correct use of sources 544: 356:WikiProject Skepticism 267:WikiProject Psychology 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 2454:race and intelligence 2170:race and intelligence 1864: 1808:I suggest you peruse 1026:The controversy over 934:The Origin of Species 712:arbitration case page 680:neutral point of view 626:neutral point of view 580:and must not contain 543: 100:Neutral point of view 2319:creating a time sink 2267:shortly before dying 688:no original research 105:No original research 1281:"Criticism" section 530:and edit carefully. 526:Please consult the 391:Skepticism articles 290:psychology articles 2057:Donald T. Campbell 2055:, suggesting that 2041:User:Victor Chmara 1757:Donald T. Campbell 1737:irrelevant chatter 1665:Donald T. Campbell 1578:Donald T. Campbell 1506:Donald T. Campbell 1098:title). Thanks, -- 640:focus on one topic 545: 522:contentious topics 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2263:scientific racism 1574:William H. Tucker 1311:Hume's Guillotine 1108: 1090: 721: 720: 692:three revert rule 616:original analysis 594:Original research 582:original research 534: 533: 507: 506: 503: 502: 499: 498: 421: 420: 417: 416: 320: 319: 316: 315: 259:Psychology portal 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2541: 2443: 2438: 2118:WeijiBaikeBianji 1598:. That would be 1104: 1102: 1086: 1084: 969: 914: 878: 672:Tag-team editing 668:, is prohibited. 650:personal attacks 612:synthetic claims 542: 536: 516: 509: 493:importance scale 479: 478: 475: 472: 469: 448: 441: 440: 430: 423: 393: 392: 389: 386: 383: 350: 343: 342: 337: 329: 322: 292: 291: 288: 285: 282: 261: 256: 255: 254: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2549: 2548: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2484: 2483: 2458:Generalrelative 2441: 2436: 2428: 2408:Generalrelative 2255:Donald Campbell 2203:Generalrelative 2133: 2102: 2079: 2049:WP:BATTLEGROUND 2002: 1988: 1970: 1849: 1283: 1138: 1118:Excellent job! 1100: 1082: 1057:. Granted that 1009:which refer to 979: 960: 905: 869: 850:User:Futurebird 726: 724:Marked grantees 717: 716: 551: 540: 476: 473: 470: 467: 466: 390: 387: 384: 381: 380: 335: 289: 286: 283: 280: 279: 257: 252: 250: 230: 201:on Knowledge's 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2547: 2545: 2537: 2536: 2531: 2526: 2521: 2516: 2511: 2506: 2501: 2496: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2427: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2214: 2213: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2132: 2129: 2101: 2098: 2096: 2078: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 1995: 1981: 1974:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1963: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1922: 1921: 1848: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1803: 1802: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1710:Howard Gardner 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1643: 1642: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1364: 1363: 1349:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1282: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1174: 1173: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1113: 1112: 1067:The Bell Curve 1055:The Bell Curve 1036:The Bell Curve 1028:The Bell Curve 1019:The Bell Curve 1011:The Bell Curve 1003:The Bell Curve 987:The Bell Curve 978: 975: 974: 973: 945: 919: 918: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 861: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 725: 722: 719: 718: 708: 707: 669: 643: 629: 619: 601: 591: 552: 549: 548: 546: 532: 531: 517: 505: 504: 501: 500: 497: 496: 489: 483: 482: 480: 468:Discrimination 463:the discussion 459:Discrimination 449: 437: 436: 434:Discrimination 431: 419: 418: 415: 414: 407:Low-importance 403: 397: 396: 394: 377:the discussion 351: 339: 338: 336:Low‑importance 330: 318: 317: 314: 313: 306:Mid-importance 302: 296: 295: 293: 276:the discussion 263: 262: 246: 234: 233: 231:Mid‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2546: 2535: 2532: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2522: 2520: 2517: 2515: 2512: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2500: 2497: 2495: 2492: 2491: 2489: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2444: 2439: 2433: 2425: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2367:) and on me ( 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2284:wikilawyering 2281: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2235: 2231: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2178: 2174: 2171: 2166: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2150: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2130: 2128: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2099: 2097: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2076: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2045:Arthur Jensen 2042: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2000: 1994: 1992: 1986: 1980: 1978: 1975: 1968: 1962: 1960: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1907: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1878: 1875: 1868: 1863: 1861: 1856: 1854: 1846: 1837: 1833: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817:Victor Chmara 1814: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1767: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1717:Victor Chmara 1714: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1671: 1666: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1652: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1632:Victor Chmara 1629: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488:Victor Chmara 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1426:Victor Chmara 1423: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330:Victor Chmara 1327: 1322: 1318: 1316: 1312: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1280: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1259:Captain Occam 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192:Captain Occam 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1135: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1078: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1043: 1041: 1037: 1031: 1029: 1022: 1020: 1014: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 990: 988: 982: 976: 972: 967: 963: 958: 954: 950: 946: 943: 939: 935: 931: 930: 929: 928: 925: 917: 912: 908: 902: 901: 900: 899: 896: 881: 876: 872: 867: 862: 859: 855: 851: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 827: 824: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 801: 798: 794: 791: 790: 789: 786: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 767: 764: 760: 759: 758: 755: 751: 750: 749: 746: 742: 738: 737: 736: 735: 732: 723: 715: 713: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 684:verifiability 681: 677: 673: 670: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 644: 641: 637: 633: 630: 627: 623: 620: 617: 613: 609: 605: 602: 599: 595: 592: 589: 588: 583: 579: 575: 571: 568: 567: 566: 564: 562: 557: 547: 538: 537: 529: 525: 523: 518: 515: 511: 510: 494: 488: 485: 484: 481: 464: 460: 456: 455: 450: 447: 443: 442: 438: 435: 432: 429: 425: 412: 408: 402: 399: 398: 395: 378: 374: 370: 369:pseudohistory 366: 365:pseudoscience 362: 358: 357: 352: 349: 345: 344: 340: 334: 331: 328: 324: 311: 307: 301: 298: 297: 294: 277: 273: 269: 268: 260: 249: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2429: 2403: 2400:Sesquivalent 2343:Sesquivalent 2315:non sequitur 2314: 2280:wall of text 2275:non sequitur 2274: 2271:non sequitur 2270: 2240:Sesquivalent 2236: 2232: 2228: 2215: 2198: 2183:Sesquivalent 2179: 2175: 2167: 2164: 2161: 2158: 2154:non sequitur 2153: 2151: 2147: 2134: 2103: 2095: 2080: 2003: 1997: 1989: 1983: 1971: 1965: 1956: 1879: 1870: 1865: 1857: 1850: 1733: 1705: 1586: 1567: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1326:undue weight 1323: 1319: 1314: 1307: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1284: 1139: 1079: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1048: 1044: 1039: 1035: 1033: 1027: 1025: 1018: 1016: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 992: 986: 984: 980: 953:Intelligence 952: 920: 892: 857: 792: 774: 727: 709: 696:edit warring 671: 645: 631: 621: 603: 597: 593: 585: 569: 559: 554:The article 553: 519: 452: 406: 354: 305: 265: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2288:bludgeoning 1592:incunabulum 1136:New version 860:attributed. 148:free images 31:not a forum 2488:Categories 2469:XOR'easter 2404:ad hominem 2377:NightHeron 2369:histrionic 2292:NightHeron 2199:explicitly 2152:- it is a 2027:David.Kane 1942:David.Kane 1890:David.Kane 1766:Stormfront 1545:David.Kane 1214:David.Kane 1120:David.Kane 924:futurebird 895:futurebird 797:Jokestress 763:Jokestress 745:Jokestress 729:quotes).-- 662:harassment 654:incivility 578:verifiable 528:procedures 382:Skepticism 373:skepticism 333:Skepticism 281:Psychology 272:Psychology 228:Psychology 1143:Pentacost 785:Rikurzhen 704:consensus 700:ownership 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 1886:WP:BLP/N 1753:WP:SYNTH 1735:This is 1396:relevant 962:Schaefer 907:Schaefer 871:Schaefer 823:Delirium 622:Advocacy 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2442:Neonate 2426:Context 2061:Mathsci 2053:WP:BLPN 2007:Mathsci 1911:Mathsci 1832:Mathsci 1792:Mathsci 1771:Mathsci 1683:Mathsci 1608:Mathsci 1596:binding 1510:Mathsci 1462:Mathsci 1398:to the 1353:Mathsci 1229:Mathsci 1163:Mathsci 1147:Mathsci 1101:Aryaman 1083:Aryaman 646:Decorum 587:Pillars 574:neutral 570:Pillars 409:on the 361:science 308:on the 199:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2373:WP:NPA 2084:Ackees 1938:WP:BLP 1929:WP:BLP 1882:WP:BLP 1874:WP:BLP 1853:WP:BLP 1734:=: --> 1623:WP:BLP 1422:WP:BLP 1106:(talk) 1088:(talk) 957:WP:SYN 949:WP:BLP 866:WP:SYN 854:WP:SYN 754:Nectar 731:Nectar 686:, and 205:scale. 126:Google 2437:Paleo 1761:WP:RS 1749:WP:OR 1745:point 1743:your 1741:prove 1651:WP:RS 1604:WP:OR 1600:WP:OR 1583:WP:OR 1400:topic 664:, or 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2473:talk 2462:talk 2432:this 2412:talk 2381:talk 2347:talk 2296:talk 2286:and 2244:talk 2207:talk 2187:talk 2122:talk 2088:talk 2065:talk 2031:talk 2023:here 2011:talk 1946:talk 1915:talk 1894:talk 1836:talk 1821:talk 1796:talk 1775:talk 1759:are 1751:and 1721:talk 1687:talk 1636:talk 1612:talk 1549:talk 1514:talk 1492:talk 1466:talk 1430:talk 1357:talk 1334:talk 1263:talk 1233:talk 1218:talk 1196:talk 1167:talk 1151:talk 1124:talk 1061:was 966:talk 911:talk 875:talk 520:The 371:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2025:.) 1328:.-- 1145:. 1063:not 940:or 858:not 487:??? 401:Low 300:Mid 176:TWL 2490:: 2475:) 2464:) 2445:– 2414:) 2383:) 2375:. 2349:) 2298:) 2246:) 2209:) 2189:) 2124:) 2090:) 2067:) 2033:) 2013:) 1993:: 1961:: 1948:) 1917:) 1896:) 1823:) 1798:) 1777:) 1723:) 1689:) 1638:) 1614:) 1551:) 1516:) 1494:) 1468:) 1432:) 1359:) 1336:) 1305:. 1265:) 1235:) 1220:) 1198:) 1169:) 1153:) 1126:) 1013:: 783:-- 682:, 660:, 656:, 652:, 634:: 576:, 367:, 363:, 156:) 54:; 2471:( 2460:( 2410:( 2379:( 2345:( 2294:( 2242:( 2205:( 2185:( 2120:( 2086:( 2063:( 2029:( 2009:( 1944:( 1913:( 1892:( 1838:) 1834:( 1819:( 1794:( 1773:( 1719:( 1685:( 1653:. 1634:( 1610:( 1547:( 1512:( 1490:( 1464:( 1428:( 1383:g 1379:g 1375:g 1371:g 1355:( 1332:( 1303:g 1299:g 1295:g 1291:g 1287:g 1261:( 1231:( 1216:( 1194:( 1165:( 1149:( 1122:( 989:. 968:) 964:( 913:) 909:( 877:) 873:( 563:, 495:. 413:. 312:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index