Talk:Heritability of IQ

Panizzon paper

Panizzon in one of the largest modern twin IQ studies establishes the heredity of IQ at 86%. General Relative deletes this citation repeatedly with no rationale and therefore should be permanently banned from this article. He is edit warring continuously by deleting real science citations with no rationale.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5D60:7920:5091:5113:979B:E636 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources wherever possible, and these are always preferred to WP:PRIMARY ones. (We can leave aside for now concerns about the reliability of the journal Intelligence when it deals with the topic of genetics.) I've replaced the Plomin study with a secondary source confirming the 80% number based on a survey of various primary studies. You are of course welcome to provide a rationale for adding an additional primary study, but as of yet you have not done so. If you'd like to report me for what you perceive to be behavioral problems, this is not the place to do that. Generalrelative (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Also: not a huge deal but I'm not a "he". They/them pronouns for me please. Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you can use a primary source. It's very common. Just make sure not to interpret it; simply plainly state the facts. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I also suggest that you self-revert since you are now past the 3RR red line per WP:EW. Generalrelative (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr. 2600, I read the source you listed. It's reliable and has a good methodology. I would support its inclusion, with the caveat that g is not the same as IQ. g will likely be slightly more heritable than IQ is, because IQ is a very good but imperfect measure of g. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of study. We have something of a consensus then, don't we, @BooleanQuackery? Thespearthrower (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't have a consensus to include a primary study reported in a highly unreliable journal. NightHeron (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There is now a consensus. Three separate users advocate for the inclusion of a peer-reviewed study. NightHeron and Generalrelative are known to communicate. It would be safe to add the article. It probably appears in a review or other paper so someone can probably cite the figure as a secondary source. Let's include both low and high heritability estimates if the papers have good methodology. BooleanQuackery (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I've been known to communicate with you too, BooleanQuackery. There is most certainly no consensus for inclusion here. Generalrelative (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There is not a consensus to include a primary study from a questionable journal. Also, quit digging up months-old posts and resurrecting them. If you have a coherent argument to make, create a new section rather than digging up an old one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this. Treating consensus as a popular vote is misguided, at best, and dragging this out over a full year is bordering on disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I accidentally stumbled across a good peer-reviewed paper that uses the 86% figure while doing something unrelated yesterday. Therefore I'll probably include a secondary source mentioning the 86% figure eventually but I will read more previous discussions first to see if there's a reason why it shouldn't be be added. BooleanQuackery (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments on sourcing and consensus

The no evidence/no direct evidence issue has recently come up again on this article, so I'll provide a summary of the issue for those who weren't already familiar with it.

This wording was first added by NightHeron in these two edits [1] [2] to the Race and intelligence article, changing the article text without changing the sources that it cited, while arguing [3] [4] that there was no need to provide a source for the new wording. The material was subsequently copied to several other Wikipedia articles, including this one and two others. [5] [6] [7] It was copied to these articles without any discussion.

Over the past two years, at least ten editors have raised concerns that the modified sentence is not supported by its sources, and/or tried to change it for that reason. These have included (in chronological order):

1. Insertcleverphrasehere [8]
2. Maximumideas [9]
3. Literaturegeek [10]
4. Amazingcosima [11]
5. Gardenofaleph [12]
6. Stonkaments [13]
7. Stevecree2 [14]
8. Myself [15]
9. Mr Butterbur [16]
10. AndewNguyen. [17]

If IP editors are included, there are another three who have objected to this material or tried to change it, bringing the total to thirteen. [18] [19] [20] Finally, when I summarized this issue to Arbcom in October, two of the arbitrators acknowledged there was a problem with how sources were being used. [21] [22] If the arbitrator comments are also included, over the past two years a total of fifteen editors have in some way acknowledged that this sentence is not properly sourced.

Some of the comments linked above have provided detailed explanations of how the modified wording contradicts the sources that it cites - particularly those from Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph, Stonkaments and myself. NightHeron has generally not engaged with these arguments directly, but instead argued that these objections are invalid and/or disruptive because the modified wording is required by consensus. He has made that argument here and here. But based on these discussions, and the fact that the editors objecting to the modified wording over the past two years have significantly outnumbered those defending it, I think that if there ever was actually a consensus for this wording, there isn't one anymore.

@HandThatFeeds: In your edit summary here you asked for evidence that sources are being misrepresented. Is this summary, along with the linked comments and discussions, adequate for your request? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:CONLEVEL: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For those unfamiliar with the wider consensus on race and intelligence, it is here: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. Generalrelative (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that 7 of the 10 editors in Ferahgo's list (#1,2,3,5,8,9,10) were in the minority of RfC participants in 2020 (see [23]) who voted "no" on the RfC's question "Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?." After that RfC was closed with a consensus for "yes" (that was overwhelmingly reaffirmed by a second RfC in 2021, see [24]), some of the "yes" voters made edits to bring articles such as this one into compliance with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Several of the editors in Ferahgo's list made strenuous efforts to stop these edits, often bludgeoning talk-pages and noticeboards. So Ferahgo's proposal to relitigate the wording and change how racial hereditarianism is described in this article is just a continuation of the efforts to circumvent consensus on this issue. NightHeron (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Please clarify two things for me.

1. Based on your comment above, it sounds as though you're saying that no matter how many editors object that this sentence in multiple articles contradicts its sources, and explain how it contradicts them, you're going to continue arguing that consensus requires it and reverting attempts to change it.

2. In your comment here, you said that whether the sources say "no evidence" or "no direct evidence" is irrelevant, because your modified wording is required by WP:FRINGE. I'm assuming that's still your position, so you aren't going to present an argument as to how your wording is supported by the sources it cites.

Are these assumptions correct? I'd like to know whether there's any possible benefit to arguing with you about this further. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I don't appreciate your caricatures of my views, and I don't think that a back-and-forth with you would be a productive use of time. NightHeron (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me ask this another way. What would it take for you to allow this sentence to be modified? For whatever reason, you've never been willing to engage with any of the attempts by other editors (Insercleverphrasehere, Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph, Stonkaments or me) to discuss the actual content of the sources you're citing, and you've also made it very clear that you don't want a RFC at a noticeboard about your use of sources. Now you've reverted a change that seemed to have clear support in the discussion below, without commenting in that discussion at all. If you're no longer willing to participation in discussions about the changes you're reverting, what options are left apart from another arbitration request? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This is false. NightHeron is among many editors who have engaged with you substantively on this topic for years. The fact is that the sources do not say what you want them to say, and the community has come to a clear consensus on this. We are long past the point where we are required to continue to indulge you, which is why you get "please refer to the existing consensus" as a response now. The issue is settled. Please move on. Generalrelative (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion here. In that discussion Stonkaments gave a detailed explanation of how every source for this sentence says something different than what it is being cited to say. In response there were a lot of arguments to support classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as "fringe", but no attempt to engage with Stonkaments' actual argument that this sentence is unsupported by its sources. After Stonkaments' initial post, the sources for this sentence weren't discussed there at all. The discussion was entirely about other sources, and how they supported the "fringe" label. The same thing happened in Ferahgo's RFC a few months later, where the discussion was entirely about the "fringe" label and the validity of her complaint itself, and there was no discussion about the content of these sources and whether they support the "no evidence" statement. Is this what you describe as the community coming to a clear consensus? --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, by the time of that discussion the issue had already been discussed ad nauseam on the Race and intelligence talk page, among other places (see this in particular, and note that some of the accounts supporting your view there are socks of neo-Nazi LTA Mikemikev which should not be given weight). The clear consensus was that the sources do indeed support the statement they are used to support –– that there is in fact no evidence for a genetic basis to racial disparities in average IQ test performance. This was later tied up with a nice big bow at the WP:SNOW-close of the RfC on racial hereditarianism. Further efforts to revive the controversy here will be ignored. Take it to a noticeboard if you'd like but this is not the place for it. Generalrelative (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that this issue can't be discussed at noticeboards, because every attempt to raise it there gets shut down before it can reach a conclusion. When it happened to my own attempt to open a discussion about it there, this comment implied other editors were expecting that outcome.

I'm glad you linked to that discussion from the race and intelligence talk page, so I can see what you were describing when you said "the community has come to a clear consensus". In that discussion you, NightHeron, Hob Galding and MrOllie supported the new wording, while Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph and Angillo opposed it. Describing a narrow majority of 4 to 3 as a community-wide consensus is very... strange.

If the "consensus" for this statement was indeed only the four of you, while in the present a total of more than ten editors have opposed it, there is no reasonable definition by which a consensus for this statement could still exist. You four appear to be the only editors who have ever supported the statement, and in most discussions the support for it comes exclusively from you and NightHeron. But it should be obvious that the group of editors who oppose the statement is far larger than the three who were active in that discussion. That discussion had no participation from Insertcleverphrasehere, Literaturegeek, Ferahgo, or myself. Unless there is another discussion you're not linking to where the statement received more support from other editors, you and NightHeron are in the clear minority here, but you can claim "consensus" in individual discussions like that one because the editors who object to the statement's sourcing aren't all active at the same time. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

AndewNguyen: Since you're apparently having trouble counting (and in case anyone uninvolved happens to stumble upon this), I'll point out that you've conveniently failed to mention that Guy (JzG), Aquillion, Firefangledfeathers, MjolnirPants and John Maynard Friedman also opposed your misreading of the sources, just in that one thread. That's 9 to 3. You then construct a counterfactual, imagining what it would have been like if you and others who share your views had been part of the discussion, failing to account for the fact that the overwhelming majority of the community opposes you (as evinced by last year's RfC). The same result would have been obtained from any representative sample. That is why you get nowhere when you complain at the noticeboards, and it is why you will get nowhere here. You are simply, demonstrably wrong about the science. Now please drop the stick and move onto other things in your life. Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Those editors did not comment in the discussion about the "no evidence" statement. They commented in the discussion directly below that one, about whether to include the word "current" before "scientific consensus".

Can you explain why you are pinging all these people? Do you want me to also ping everyone who I think is likely to support my own position? --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

When I posted my last comment, I hadn't noticed yet that you'd updated the article based on Firefangledfeathers' suggestion below. If we've finally found a wording that's acceptable to both of us, this is a pointless argument now, so let's not continue it. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed because that's pretty irrelevant to the heritability of IQ. Race doesn't need to be brought up at all. It's like arguing about racial differences on the heritability of height. Makes no sense; take race out. Keep that in articles which are about race. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I support totally removing the discussion about race in this article, in both the lead and article body. However, we also should address the issue of these sources being misrepresented in all the other articles that the same sentence cited to the same sources has been copied to. --AndewNguyen (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@BooleanQuackery: Your suggestion to remove the discussion about race sounds like a good idea. This would need to involve removing the last paragraph of the lede, and also removing the "between-group heritability" section. I normally don't support eliminating entire sections of articles, but in this case it does seem like the best option. There is a huge amount of current research and academic discussion about the heritability of IQ, and very little of it is about race, and yet this topic currently takes up over 1/8th of this article's content. Meanwhile the article doesn't even directly mention well-known topics in this area such as the Wilson Effect. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree. Definitely undue weight for a small topic. (And the Wilson effect should also be included and should probably get its own article as there are hundreds of papers mentioning the topic.) At the least it could be summarized to a much smaller size if it must be mentioned. BooleanQuackery (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a careful trim of material on race and intelligence, but the lead summary seems about as short as it could be, and I do oppose full removal. Discussion of race and IQ makes up more than 0% of the body of reliable sources focused on IQ heritability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: The underlying issue is the one raised here and here. In this article and others, sources are being cited to say something very different from what they actually say, and many editors have raised concerns about that. But NightHeron has already reverted one attempt to tweak the article's wording to match its sources, and has reverted similar past attempts by other editors. [25] [26] If removing the discussion about race altogether is not a good solution either, how do you suggest this problem be addressed? --AndewNguyen (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@AndewNguyen: This is what is called a loaded question. When you ask how do you suggest this problem be addressed? you are presupposing that two complaints which went nowhere were valid. But that is in fact a very tenuous assumption. Generalrelative (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There are some alternatives that I'd prefer to the status quo. Maybe something like:

• The academic consensus is that the existence of a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups is unsupported by science.
• or, The scientific consensus is that genetics do not explain IQ differences between racial groups.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be okay with the second option, The scientific consensus is that genetics do not explain IQ differences between racial groups. That's close to what this paper says: "most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences". Per WP:RS/AC, if the article is going to make a statement about academic majority opinion, it requires a source which makes a statement about that. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy with this too, but I think it would be somewhat clearer and more specific to say The scientific consensus is that genetics do not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups. Groups don't have IQs after all. Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(ec with Ferahgo) Rather than "genetics do not explain IQ differences", which some readers could easily misread as saying "do not explain all the IQ differences but only part of them" (in the same way as some readers might read "no direct evidence" as implying "but some indirect evidence"), I'd prefer something closer to the first version with "the existence of a genetic component...is unsupported by science". I think that's at least unambiguous. NightHeron (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's better the way it currently is. The current wording is best because it's directly supported by the Ceci and Williams paper. But unless someone finds a source that directly supports the alternative phrasing, that would be venturing into original research again. To avoid WP:SYNTH, it would have to be a paper that supports both the "academic consensus" part and the "unsupported by science" part. We should stay with what can definitely be supported by sources. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I understand your concern but I think that this kind of misreading is unlikely, given the context provided by the previous sentence here. Let's leave aside AndewNguyen's bogus claims about what the sources say. Yes they support the "no evidence" statement but that is not necessarily the most important fact to convey to the reader. Consider that there is no evidence, direct or otherwise, for the existence of alien life, but many scientists believe that it is likely to exist, whereas the mainstream view on genetically determined differences in intelligence between racial groups is that they are vanishingly unlikely to exist. The one prominent outlier, David Reich, believes that very small differences are likely to exist but that we currently have no idea which races will ultimately be determined to be intellectually superior to which (i.e. Blacks could just as easily be superior to Whites as vice versa), so there is no question about such differences explaining existing disparities in test performance. They simply do not, even if they are one day found to exist, which is –– again, according to most geneticists –– vanishingly unlikely. In my view the new wording captures the essence of this consensus more succinctly. And those who wish to read more can look at the full section in the article body. If anything more needs to be explained and/or refined, we can do it there. Generalrelative (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Okay, those are good points. I withdraw my objection to the current wording in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

FFFabulous! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the recent change to the lead is an improvement. Since we seem to have some agreement about this now, I'll update the body of the article to match the lead.

The "no evidence" statement also exists in the articles Intelligence quotient, Race and intelligence, and Racial achievement gap in the United States. Can it be updated to the new wording in those articles as well? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that in other articles we're going to need to look at the specific context before coming to a conclusion. I have no problem with WP:BOLD changes of course, but they may require individualized discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to continue commenting on this page instead of opening a new discussion at talk:Intelligence quotient, so that the discussion doesn't get fragmented.

Can you explain why you've reverted my making the agreed-upon change to the Intelligence quotient article? You added the "no evidence" statement to both of these articles only a few hours apart, [27] [28] so it seems like the two articles should be kept consistent with one another. And all of the reasons discussed above for why the new wording is preferable are reasons that apply to both articles.

@Firefangledfeathers: As the person who proposed the compromise that we all accepted on this article, it would be valuable if you could suggest a way forward with respect to the various other articles where the same statement exists. Bear in mind that, as AndewNguyen pointed out above, it was clearly established last year that this sourcing issue can't be discussed at noticeboards. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No, we will not be discussing your preferred changes to the article Intelligence quotient here, where you can avoid scrutiny from the wider community. Your repeated attempts to relitigate what you call a "sourcing issue" keep getting shut down because you are attempting to do an end-run around a clear community consensus. You are simply wrong about what the sources say, and we are not required to indulge you until you get the result you desire. If the community doesn't want to hear about this anymore on the noticeboards, then that's kind of the final word, isn't it? Generalrelative (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Why not talk about it at Talk:Intelligence quotient? I think AndrewNguyen is saying above that this sentence is present on four articles total, and I think that's not an unreasonable number of local discussions to try. I'd prefer they happen one a time. I'm not motivated to start one myself, but I have the talk pages on my watchlist and am likely to chime in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative seems to be saying in the comment above yours that he or she isn't interested in discussing the issue anymore. But if you think we should try discussing it at Talk:Intelligence quotient, it's worth a try. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's the sourcing issue that, as Generalrelative said, has already been discussed at great length. The consensus supports both of FFF's suggested wordings. What could be discussed (briefly) in each specific case is what wording is best in context, that is, taking into account what the rest of the text says and which sources are cited. NightHeron (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm with FFF on this. The wholesale removal of the content was obviously inappropriate and would never have survived scrutiny from the wider community. The fallacious move from "IQ is largely heritable at the level of the individual" to "between-group differences in average IQ test performance must therefore be at least partially genetic" is so widespread, and so frequently countered whenever the topic is discussed by actual geneticists, that some sort of discussion of this fallacy clearly belongs in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• We had a huge RFC on this. While consensus can change, you would have to hold another RFC at a comparable venue to demonstrate that it has; claiming (inaccurately) to have a majority by looking only at people who supported you and only in a smaller venue is inappropriate per WP:CONLOCAL. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• It is very important that the wordings reflect the sources used. If the source says one thing, then the text that is supported by that citation cannot say another. In case that there is a consensus that the viewpoint expressed in a specific source is not the one wikipedia should adopt, then that source would have to be replaced with another that is more accurate or which better expresses the consensus view. It damages wikipedias credibility if the article says one thing and the sources used says another.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone here would disagree with this. We have been disagreeing over what the sources actually say. And in any case the point is moot here because the language we disagree about has been removed from the present article. Generalrelative (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Cochran & Harpending in The 10,000 Year Explosion argued that the Ashkenazim are a standard deviation above the general population (including other Jews), and that this had a genetic basis with concomitant heritable diseases that affect intelligence. Desmond Morris believed that Melanesians were more intelligent than Europeans, and that this likely had a genetic basis. But both populations (assuming these authors are correct) have been relatively isolated from the rest of the world, allowing divergences to emerge and stabilize. Neither are 'race' in the social-construct sense of the US tradition, where (purely by coincidence, I'm sure) it's always the author's race that is superior. — kwami (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect sourcing in the lede

I made some edits to correct the lede to the cited source, which clearly illuminates that heritability measures variance of both environment and genetics, and to the extent that it isolates for genetics, it only does so under when the population is restricted to a specific environment. It's possible that the cited source is not the the best source to use for the lede, but if we are going to use that source, we should correct the lede to represent what the source says. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The language of the lead could certainly be clarified, but unfortunately the suggested language you added only made it less clear (indeed, it appeared to get the role of environment precisely backwards). One might productively look to the lead of our main article Heritability for guidance, but to say anything about the heritability of IQ without running into WP:OR issues, we will need sources that specifically address heritability in the context of IQ. For reference, here is the opening paragraph of Heritability:

Heritability is a statistic used in the fields of breeding and genetics that estimates the degree of variation in a phenotypic trait in a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals in that population. The concept of heritability can be expressed in the form of the following question: "What is the proportion of the variation in a given trait within a population that is not explained by the environment or random chance?"

I'm not suggesting that the IP editor does not understand this, but rather that their writing unfortunately lent itself to a misreading that they evidently did not intend. Generalrelative (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The cited source is clear that heritability does not measure genetic variance, but environmental *and* genetic variance.

“ Heritability is an estimate of the genetic and environmental contributions to the variance of any phenotypic measure around the mean for a given population. ”

The way the lede is currently written incorrectly suggests that heritability estimates only the genetic component of variation. The source is likewise clear that the genetic variance can only be estimated when the environment is controlled for.

“ Heritability refers to the genetic contribution to variance within a population and in a specific environment (it was originally introduced for use in breeding experiments intended to improve crop yield); if the environment changes, the heritability measure changes. ”

Now, it may be that this source is not the correct source for the lede. But if we are going to use this source, it is important to quote it correctly, and avoid the WP:OR of stripping the relevant aspects of how heritability is impacted by environmental variance. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems there's some inconsistency here. Indeed, the cited source is quite sour on the idea that the heritability of IQ is even a useful concept:

Under these circumstances, one might imagine that the ‘useless quantity’ of heritability would have been discarded. Even if not repudiated, as in chemistry phlogiston was replaced by oxygen, the laborious calculation of heritability estimates should at least have been given an honourable pension. In many areas of genetic research this is indeed the case. However, in one field in particular, that of psychometry and ‘behaviour’, researchers cling to the concept as if afraid of letting go the hand of the nurse. . . . Heritability estimates become a way of applying a useless quantity to a socially constructed phenotype and thus apparently scientizing it—a clear-cut case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

I'd suggest that this should be discussed or even quoted at length, but we should find a better source to cite for our basic definition of heritability as applied to IQ. Generalrelative (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: Hopefully this edit alleviates your concern, at least the one about the source being misrepresented. We could still use a solid source that defines heritability in the context of IQ, but absent that I'd say it's best simply to stick to a consistent definition of heritability. Generalrelative (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that the lede is still doing some "creative editing" of the cited source, I can't say it looks any better. At a computational level, there is nothing about heritability that separates variance due to environment or genetics, which is what the cited source presents. Stripping that information from the source is some fairly stark original research. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you're referring to here. We no longer cite that source for our definition of heritability. We're just giving the standard textbook definition, per e.g. Nature Education. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Rose is still cited in conjunction with Delvin. I'll just observe that "giving the standard textbook definition" without citing the textbook is poor form. It's not clear to me why you think the Rose source is worth citing, but not worth incorporating. Rose is a good source, and does have the definition correct. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-read my comment above please. I do think that Rose is worth incorporating –– as a prominent critique of the idea that heritability of IQ is a scientifically valid concept. It seems to me a rather compelling argument actually. We should summarize and possibly quote it within the article body first, and then if what's there appears prominent enough we can incorporate it into the lead. The citations for the textbook definition of heritability are given in the lead section of Heritability and in this article (now) in the first paragraph of the "Heritability and caveats" section. Per WP:LEADCITE this is all entirely normal. If you would like to argue that Wkipedia's consensus understanding of what heritability means is incorrect, the place to have that conversation would be on the Heritability talk page rather than here. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you can't refer to citations in another article to support content in this article. That's not how WP:RS works. Referring to "Wikipedia's consensus" is also a bit strange, unless there is a specific policy or enforcement page you are referring to. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Those citations are also in this article (in the first paragraph of the "Heritability and caveats" section). Did you miss that? WP:LEADCITE tells us that if something is cited in the article body it is not necessary to cite it in the lead. And yes, the definition of heritability that's been present on the main article Heritability should be understood to have WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. We cannot create a new definition here, per WP:LOCALCON. Rather, if you disagree with the established definition, you need to state your case at the main article. If you have additional concerns and would like to bring in a wider group of science-literate editors, I'd suggest posting at WP:FT/N –– but in terms of process they will tell you the same thing that I'm telling you now. Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to Delvin or Rose? Those are the two citation attached to the first two sentences of the lede. I guessing it's not Rose, since that's the reference which was just discarded. If you are referring to Delvin, that is not a textbook. Instead of incorrectly citing policy ("... consensus until it is disputed or reverted") it would help if you could just surface the textbook you are referring to. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No. The two textbook sources are cited in the first paragraph of the "Heritability and caveats" section. That's now the third time I've told you this very simple piece of information. Click the "Refs" tab below. Those are the cited sources. Or you could, you know, actually look at the article. In any case, you've exhausted my patience and any engagement I was required to extend to you. Good luck out there. Generalrelative (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Then I'll admit to being baffled as to why they are not cited, and instead you prefer the cites to Delvin and Rose. When I get a chance I'll pull the cites to the lede to avoid this kind of confusion going forward. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

They are cited. They are not cited in the lead sentence because that sentence doesn't just define heritability but rather the heritability of IQ, so including citations there might give the impression that the cited sources support the entire content of the sentence, which they do not. This is actually entirely normal for leads, especially opening sentences, which need to summarize various aspects the article into coherent statements. That's why, per WP:LEADCITE, we don't need to cite claims in the lead when they are cited in the article body. Generalrelative (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Refs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Much of the article is poorly sourced

Reviewing the article, it appears that large chunks of the content are attributable to User:Miradre, an editor that was topic banned from articles of this nature. As one might expect, this has left the article in a very poor state with respect to sourcing. I would attempt to improve the situation, but I suspect that some strange sort of false consensus has fallen over the content from the topic banned editor. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I've found you difficult to work with (see above), I encourage you to continue to make WP:BOLD changes –– and for the record, I approve of much of what you've just done, e.g. [29]. If we have to bring things back here to discuss, I'll ask you to respect process and policy (in particular not violating WP:LOCALCON with respect to how we define heritability), and actually read the comments of others. If you can do that, we can make progress. And if need be, I'll be happy to post at WP:FT/N myself, but for now I'd like to see what you can come up with in terms of improved sourcing. Generalrelative (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Enhancing the Article on Heritability of IQ

Hi, I’m a student from Uskudar University. I edit the article 'Heritability of IQ' as an assignment for my course Biotechnology in Neurosciences. I already completed Wikipedia training modules to be proficient in Wikipedia editing. I plan to add a paragraph discussing a study that explores the evidence for the predominance of genetic influences on adult intelligence under the 'Estimates' section. Additionally, I am considering introducing a new section to explore the future aspects of the heritability of IQ. Any support or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Bayrakd (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest presenting your sources here first, so they can be discussed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, here are some of them to start with;

To contribute to the title: influence of parent genes that are not inherited, this one

This source and this source are to be used for further genetics research on intelligence.

Suggesting a new title for discussion: 'Genomic Insights into Intelligence.' Here are two articles as sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37032719/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28530673/

These are the ones for now. I should start editing now because I'm short on time. Please feel free to go through and provide feedback.

Best, Bayrakd (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This is one of Wikipedia's more controversial articles, and is under a special 'contentious topics' procedure. You would be better off choosing almost any other article on Wikipedia for a student editing project. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would have to agree with MrOllie on that. This is a very complicated topic which can lead to very inflamed emotions and arguments. Not a great choice for a student project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you are short on time, I will echo what others have said and suggest finding a different topic. Perhaps browsing Category:Biotechnology or Category:Neuroscience would be helpful in finding a different article to focus on. For whatever topic you choose, in general and especially for WP:MEDRS, it is better to cite reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, instead of directly citing individual studies by themselves. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) may also be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the suggestions and information. I was assigned to this article by my instructor. In that case, I will ask her to change the topic.

best wishes Bayrakd (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

explore the future aspects of the heritability of IQ - please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. --WikiLinuz (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)