Talk:J. Philippe Rushton

Derailed opening paragraph(s)

The opening provides a clear explanation on J. Philippe Rushton, his work, and his criticisms. However, the second paragraph derails and spends half its time discussing the Pioneer Fund, rather than the individual. While it's important to consider the individuals surroundings, the depth of the Pioneer Fund is slightly excessive. I wouldn't usually consider this noteworthy enough of creating a section in the Talk Page, however I am creating this pre-preemptively to avoid an edit war on the subject. User:Skllagyook pinging you for reverting the change, feel free to explain how removing one sentence is "whitewashing", or a "large amount" of sourced material, or how I am an IP editor, or alternatively, how this was not a minor edit. From my experience editing many pages and providing ample sources on various subjects, I would not consider any of those statements to be true. Dr-Bracket (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Skllagyook was completely correct to revert your edit. Your edit was by no stretch of the imagination a minor edit; please read WP:ME. Rushton was intimately associated with the Pioneer Fund, and so it's important from the start to explain what the Pioneer Fund is. NightHeron (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding WP:ME. Thanks Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr-Bracket: Regarding describing you as an IP editor, I must have not been paying enough attention and been thinking of another page at the time. That was my mistake. My appologies. Otherwise I concur with User:NightHeron, whose reasoning is similar to mine on the issue. Skllagyook (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

what position is closest to his views

I am a little confused by some of the recent changes in wording. Did Rushton generally hold that a/ genetics completely explain racial differences in intelligence, or b/(less strongly) that genetics was the major factor in intelligence", or just c/ that genetics was merely a significant factor in intelligence or d/ even only that genetics was a factor in intelligence? I realize he worded it different ways at different times, but what was his predominant or general view, or did perhaps his views change in a recognizable direction over time? If there was a change, what was his more recent position?

It seems that statements deploring or supporting his views might choose one or another of these positions as a summary, but that does not mean they were accurate in doing so . I would imagine that someone who wanted to minimize his difference from the consensus might want to say d/, and someone who thought his views totally unacceptable might choose to word it a/ --- but which of these very different ideas represented his general view? DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure precisely what recent changes in wording you're referring to, but the statement by his former department on the matter is perfectly clear: Rushton’s works linking race and intelligence are based on an incorrect assumption that fuels systemic racism, the notion that racialized groups are concordant with patterns of human ancestry and genetic population structure. This idea is rejected by analysis of the human genome .... Moreover, Rushton’s work is characterized by a complete misunderstanding of population genetic measures, including fundamental misconceptions about the nature of heritability and gene-environment interactions during development. [1] Generalrelative (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The departmental damnatio doesn't address the question.

Rushton (d. 2012) published polemical papers with Jensen in 2005 and 2010 promoting the hereditarian account of group IQ differences. The abstract of one of the papers says that they argue for 50 to 80 percent genetic contribution, so at least toward the end he held the mostly genetic position, (b). However this kind of specific estimation of heritabilities and genetic influences seems more to come from Jensen, who wrote about it in other places and was always specialized in intelligence. Rushton's prior views may not have been expressed in quantitative terms as he was as seeking a grand pattern involving "all" trait differences and he switched his research interests several times. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me to be rather idle chatter to be discussing precisely what percentage of the racial IQ gap Rushton attributed to genetics. Just as much as it would be idle to discuss what percentage of missing hikers some "Bigfoot expert" attributed to Bigfoot predation. Absent reliable independent sources, this has no bearing on what belongs in the article, per WP:FRIND of course: Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Generalrelative (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The idle question of Rushton and percentages is already implicit in the article ("partial genetic" re IQ). Whether or not that section is what prompted DGG to ask, we both exercised the same freedom to post replies, even if only one of those actually answered the question.

Bigfoot is a familiar trope from the R&I Talk where there was a short thread on it that I opened shortly before your arrival. It is easy to locate as the only section in the archives with Bigfoot in the title. There was no serious reply at the time, but if you know of any reason (other than social disapproval, speculation on motives and other such "human factors") why Bigfoot, alien abductions and the like are pseudoscience, that also applies to R&I hereditarianism, please feel free to be the first to reveal what it could be. Of course it's possible for a hypothesis to be intelligible, testable, adequately empirically motivated and still fail or be a crank magnet, but the Bigfoot trope is the bald assertion that none of those prerequisites apply to R&I and it is pseudoscience on its face. Maybe it's more like dingoes abducting hikers' children, than Bigfoot abducting hikers, and there is no a priori answer through confident sneering. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Late to this discussion: could you explain what changes you are concerned about? This broad diff seems generally to be an improvement. In general in the context of a scientific biography, reliably sourced documentation of the subject's opinions of what gives rise to oberved heritability claims seem reasonable even if those opinions are held for unscientific reasons. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't know about recent changes, but the article says "proponent of the idea that racial differences in IQ are partially related to genetic inheritance" which understates Rushton's position, i.e., 50 to 80 percent of average group differences, plus a package of related differences on several clusters of other traits, are genetic. I don't know if other sources about Rushton or Jensen quoted their estimate, but there should be enough in reviews of Rushton's earlier work to make clear that he argued for large and meaningful genetic differences on "everything", including intelligence, and not the mere existence of some nonzero genetic difference for IQ. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on race and intelligence

The section on "Race and intelligence" summarizes Rushton's views, and then adds: "Rushton's view that a genetic connection exists between race and intelligence is rejected by a broad consensus of scientists today." I'm not entirely sure why this needs to be mentioned at all (I think it might be part of the FRINGE policy?), but I don't like the current wording. It's not supported by the current sources (even after User:Generalrelative helpfully added one that specifically rejected Rushton's views), and I think it is misleading. Two of the three sources claim there is a consensus that observed IQ differences between races are not due to genetics. The last source rejects the concept of biological races (but claims no consensus). Summarizing this as there being a consensus against "a genetic connection between race and intelligence" seems misleading (and I don't think that consensus exists). If Rushton used IQ results to claim that some races were biologically predisposed to have a higher IQ than others, this view can be pointed out to be contrary to consensus. Can someone point me to where the current wording originates from? Ornilnas (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this or similar language is required by WP:FRINGE. And the scientific consensus on the matter is clear. See this RfC from last May: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. Generalrelative (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! That RfC does indeed support the current language. However, the sources provided in this article still don't. Perhaps the RfC you linked to contains better/more explicit sources? Or perhaps I'm misreading the claim? Ornilnas (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the problem. You acknowledge that Two of the three sources claim there is a consensus that observed IQ differences between races are not due to genetics. It doesn't seem necessary to quibble about the third. Generalrelative (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If you don't think there is any meaningful difference between the current language and "there is a consensus that observed IQ differences between races are not due to genetics", will you let me change the wording in the article to the latter? Ornilnas (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no major reason to object but wanted to make sure that we connect the statement directly to Rushton, so I went ahead and made a WP:BOLD suggestion in the article. Happy to discuss if you still find it unclear. Generalrelative (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I like your new wording much better! Specific and to the point; and clearly supported by the sources. (Except maybe the word "broad"? One of the sources describes the consensus as "emerging", which seems to emphasise almost the opposite of "broad".) Ornilnas (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. In response to your point about describing the consensus as "broad", I've offered what I hope is an acceptable compromise. Generalrelative (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no more complaints! Ornilnas (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)