Content deleted Content added
Line 144: *'''Uninvolved comment:''' Stop the bickering and put it up to an RfC. Make your strongest arguments in one comment. Be done with this patheticness. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 02:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC) What I wrote has prompted some heated discussion—and so to broadly respond: *Genetic causes of race differences in intelligence haven't been established to a level of scientific certainty—which is exactly what TBC stated. Genetic causes <u>were '''not''' purported by H&M</u> (see beginning of this thread), so adding "genetics" to the sentence in question would misrepresent the book and be factually incorrect. As per my original edit, it is baldly false to claim that TBC "purports" that B/W IQ differences have a genetic cause. The authors make clear they think genetics likely makes some unknown contribution—but they're exquisitely clear that they do not claim it does. *{{reply to|Stonkaments}} makes excellent points. TBC is premised on the statement ''"IQ scores match, to a first degree, whatever it is that people mean when they use the word intelligent, or smart in ordinary language."'' By their definition, blacks are on average less intelligent than whites. Others claim that IQ tests do not measure what's commonly considered "intelligence"—or even argue there is no such quality of intelligence and/or that it can't be quantified—and these people appear to tightly control and jealously guard this article's editing. But if we were to follow their guidance, much of the article (and a host of others) would be objectionable, if not outright "incorrect"—beginning with the first sentence:: ''"...the authors argue that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and that it is a better predictor of many personal outcomes…"'' H&M's argument is premised on IQ scores (and similar measures)—so if IQ doesn't measure human intelligence, how is that sentence acceptable in Wikivoice? *{{reply to|Sesquivalent}} also contributes pointedly: no one who accepts that IQ tests have even basic validity claims that blacks don't have lower average intelligence than whites—they simply euphemize it, as do Turkenheimer, et al. in acknowledging as a "deficit in cognitive ability". Note the response: {{tq|because of the absence of any agreed upon definition of ''connection'', ''race'', or ''intelligence''… it's absurd to call it a "fact".}} This tendentious and unhelpful assertion illuminates the crux of the issue: *To suggest that racial differences in intelligence don't exist because "race" and "intelligence" lack "any agreed-upon definition" is pure sophistry and makes building a accurate encyclopedia impossible. Doing so flatly contradicts the "scientific consensus" that has become the trier of fact for much of Wikipedia. The simple truth is that—in the scientific world, in Wikipedia, and amongst the public—IQ tests are broadly accepted to measure (albeit imperfectly) what is commonly called "intelligence". A cursory glance at our other articles reveals this to be true: that IQ tests measure intelligence isn't hotly debated in, for example, the [[Sex differences in intelligence]] article—since men and women have roughly equal average intelligence, there's no need for "social-justice" crusaders to distort or disappear the truth. [[Race and sports]] doesn't begin by claiming race is a construct with no established meaning, and thus nothing can be said about a "connection" between race and sports. Only in the context of [[Race and intelligence]] does the word "intelligence" (along with "race") become so ineffable as to be unquantifiable, if not outright indefinable—obviously because the very real racial differences in average intelligence are too malodorous and unpalatable for some. There is a cadre of editors who police R&I and related articles, making sure they don't reflect the obvious truth—which in turn, makes those articles incompatible with the rest of the encyclopedia. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed in order to have accurate, consistent, and NPOV articles. Obscuring or omitting the truth because it is reminiscent of ugly history or makes people uncomfortable is no way to build an encyclopedia together. Thanks for everyone's input! [[User:Ekpyros|Elle Kpyros]] ([[User talk:Ekpyros|talk]]) 22:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC) | |||