Talk:Richard Lynn/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

More fraud

Might it be possible to include this info in the article? I'll never understand how Lynn is taken seriously by some intelligence researchers. What kind of "scholar" cites fake numbers from a hoax website?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.5.98 (talk • contribs)

very interesting, but not at all surprising. i cannot come up with a brief encapsulation,, but maybe someone else can.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Praise of Richard Lynn and his work by his friends

A breakthrough in the study of national cultures was Richard Lynn’s 1971 book, Personality and National Character.

— Hofstede, Geert; McCrae, Robert R. (1 February 2004). "Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture". Cross-Cultural Research. 38 (1): 52–88. doi:10.1177/1069397103259443.

The evolution of general intelligence is one of numerous areas in which Richard Lynn has made significant scientific contributions.

— Kanazawa, Satoshi (July 2012). "The evolution of general intelligence". Personality and Individual Differences. 53 (2): 90–93. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.015.

(Lynn's coauthor)

Richard Lynn’s work, the best known of which is on ethnic/national differences in intelligence, reflects seemingly incongruous characteristics. He is on one hand a methodical and tenacious assembler of facts and figures. At the same time, he is a highly analytical, creative, and insightful conceptualizer. He tantalizes his readers with vast information, his organization of which is more than the sum of its parts. He is to intellectual group differences as Charles Darwin is to biology.

...

Lynn writes with patience and calmness while presenting evidence in defending the truth against the well-intentioned but scientifically incorrect. To use an example in the realm of antisocial behavior, Lynn (2009) first stated the position of an American Psychological Association Task Force that African American students do not engage in higher rates of disruptive behavior than Whites but are punished more because of lack of teacher training, classroom management, racial stereotyping, and lack of training in culturally competent practices. Lynn pointed out that there are grossly disproportionate Blacks in a variety of criminal and delinquent and other antisocial behavior. The descending order of suspension and exclusion rates of Blacks, Native-Americans, Hispanics, Whites, and East Asians has existed for many years. The grossly disproportionate crime rate of Blacks is found in a number of different countries. In spite of being a minority, East Asians consistently demonstrate a low rate of disruptive behavior both in school and the community.

— Templer, Donald I. (July 2012). "Richard Lynn and the evolution of conscientiousness". Personality and Individual Differences. 53 (2): 94–98. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.023.

(Pioneer fund grantee)

Sowell also discusses the "Flynn Effect," named after Professor James Flynn, who found IQ scores rising by about 3 points a decade over the last fifty years. The Flynn Effect might in fact be better named the Lynn-Flynn Effect, since Professor Richard Lynn's 1982 article in Nature was actually the first to document the phenomenon of rising IQ scores among the Japanese, which he attributed to improved nutrition. But because Lynn is both a "race-realist" and a "hereditarian," while Flynn is an "environmentalist" (though certainly not a hermeneuticist), the credit will most likely remain the latter's.

— Rushton, J. Phillippe. "Racial research and final solutions". Society. 34 (3): 78–82. doi:10.1007/s12115-997-1011-8.

(Pioneer fund grantee)

Richard Lynn was the first to bring the phenomenon of massive gains on standardized intelligence tests over time to widespread attention with a study published in Nature involving Japanese cohorts ( Lynn, 1983). Subsequent research by Flynn, 1984 and Flynn, 1987 expanded the scope of the search for these gains and found that they are occurring in a number of industrialized countries at a rate of approximately three points a decade. The effect has been christened the ‘Flynn effect’ (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994), however Rushton (1999) has argued that the effect should be termed the Lynn–Flynn effect, owing to the equally important contributions of both researchers to its elucidation.

— Woodley, Michael A. (July 2012). "A life history model of the Lynn–Flynn effect". Personality and Individual Differences. 53 (2): 152–156. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.028.

The so-called Flynn effect was identified by Richard Lynn (1982) two years before Flynn (1984) identified the same phenomenon in the United States.

— te Nijenhuis, Jan; Cho, Sun Hee; Murphy, Raegan; Lee, Kun Ho (July 2012). "The Flynn effect in Korea: Large gains". Personality and Individual Differences. 53 (2): 147–151. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.022.

Richard Lynn’s illustrious scientific career has taught, especially those who are ready to learn, several lessons including a methodological one.

...

Richard Lynn was among the firsts who noticed regularities in the geographical distribution of intelligence (Lynn, 1997).

...

Cross-cultural studies of personality traits involving a large number of countries were launched only recently. Many of these studies were inspired by Richard Lynn’s pioneering research and by the sometimes uncomfortable questions he had the courage to ask. The study of national differences in personality have lagged behind similar studies of intelligence, but when influenced by Lynn’s prevailing ideas, they have nevertheless reached a satisfying level of sophistication.

— Allik, Jüri (July 2012). "National differences in personality". Personality and Individual Differences. 53 (2): 114–117. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.011.

Richard Lynn, a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences, has reviewed the assembled data on overall Asian IQ in two major articles.

— Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein ; Charles (1994). Bell curve : Intelligence and class structure in American life (1st pbk. ed. ed.). New York [u.a.]: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-6848-2429-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

own work relies on Lynn's data

In today’s world we find enormous differences between countries in wealth, social and political structures, and many “cultural” traits. Similar differences are observed between ethnic, racial, religious and other groups, even if they live in the same country. According to the “reductionist” approach, many of these differences result from differences in personality traits and cognitive abilities between human groups. Richard Lynn has been the most prominent protagonist of this approach in recent years (Lynn, 2008a). Lynn’s most outstanding contribution to this field is the compilation of a data base of “national IQ” for most countries of the world. Data for an initial set of 81 countries were published in 2001 and 2002 (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2001 and Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002), followed by an expanded list of national IQs for 113 countries (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2006). The most recent update expands this set to a total of 136 countries (Lynn, 2010).

— Meisenberg, Gerhard (July 2012). "National IQ and economic outcomes". Personality and Individual Differences. 53 (2): 103–107. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.022.

(Pioneer fund grantee)

I'm sorry, but what's your point? That other members of the racist Pioneer Fund support Lynn? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• It is exactly the point made explicitly by several of the critics that the pioneer fund is a club of mutual support who cite and "validate" and publish and fund eachother's work outside of the standard processes and venues of mainstream science. For example Lynns books were published by Praeger only because a fellow pioneer fund grantee Seymour Itzkoff was the director of the series that he published in at the time. The same goes for Lynn nominating Rushton for the nobel prize and vice versa.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What about at first familiariziung yourself with the topic, Marek? You obviously have no clue about the people you're dismissing as 'racists' here. Rather than being a "member of the racist Pioneer Fund supporting Lynn" Jüri Allik is one of the foremost psychologists in Estonia. Dorpater (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, on what basis do you say that Kanazawa, Templer, Murray and Herrnstein are Pioneer Fund grantees? I've never seen that accusation made about any of them before. The first three are living people, so you had better be able to support this - BLP policy also applies to talk pages.

You are applying a double standard here. The list of books you posted above includes one by Eric Alterman, whose article describes him as a "historian, journalist, author, media critic, blogger, and educator". He has no training or expertise in psychology, genetics, anthropology, or any other field that related to Lynn's research. I'm not saying his writings can't be cited at Wikipedia, but it is not reasonable to say that a journalist and blogger is a greater authority about Lynn's work than a fellow psychologist who's been funded by the same organization that Lynn has (and as I said, I'm also fairly sure the only actual Pioneer Fund grantees on this list are Rushton and Meisenberg).

By the way, I don't think this is an either/or situation. The article can cite the references that The Master provided, and it also can cite those that you provided. However, I think the best sources of all are fellow intelligence researchers who are more uninvolved in the debate over Lynn's work, such as Hunt, Loehlin, McDaniel and Rindermann. 103.47.145.165 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

They are all closely linked to the Pioneer fund whether or not they are actual grantees (I am pretty sure Kanazawa is, though maybe Herrnstein and Murray are not since they have plenty of funding at their home institutions). Your classic blp lawyering protecting people from their own viewpoints, statements and associates is getting tiresome Captain Occam. And no, I am not applying a double standard - I am finding reliable sources that are published by reliable presses and using them here to ide evidence and citations as you requested (in spite of it already being there). You then responded with corraling a group of Lynns friends and putting their praise here published mostly in unreliable venues dedicated to hereditarian scholarship as if it were some kind of popularity contest. It is ont. It is about informing the reader about the academic standing of Lynns scholarship - and in that regards almost all of your quotes are 100% irrelevant because they are closely tied to the subject and which reliable sources actually explicitly mention. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you seriously not see a problem with calling a living person a "pioneer fund grantee" when that is false? And when it is pointed out that it is false, you do not remove the "pioneer fund grantee" labels you put under each of the quotes, and instead try to support them with something impossible to verify or disprove ("They are all closely linked to the Pioneer fund")? We are writing an encyclopedia, and information needs to be verifiable, even on talk pages. If these people have done something blameworthy, you need to be be specific what it is and support it.

You also need to be specific what you are accusing me and The Master of. If I understand you correctly, you are insinuating that he and I both are sock puppets of a banned user. If that is what you mean, that is something to bring up at WP:SPI, not here. However, I think SPI will find that your accusation is baseless.

It was The Master's own decision to post this list - not mine, and not a banned user's. I don't object to you using the sources you posted above in response to my request. However, I think The Master's sources are useful, too. I hope the article will be able to cite some of them both. 103.47.145.165 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Templer is listed as a grantee at the pioneer websie. Kanazawa has coauthored with Lynn. I have not accused The Master of being a sock of Occam, the only two people who believe that is you and occam who posted that belief on wikipediocracy almost simultaneously with you. So yes, I do think you are a sock of a banned user.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what you said: "You then responded with corraling a group of Lynns friends and putting their praise here published mostly in unreliable venues dedicated to hereditarian scholarship as if it were some kind of popularity contest." That list was posted by The Master, but you are saying I did it. If you think The Master is me, and you think I'm Captain Occam, then that means you think The Master is Captain Occam. Why is that hard to understand?

If the Pioneer Fund website lists Templer as a grantee, then I'll accept he is one. But Murray, Herrnstein and Kanazawa aren't, and you should remove your claim that they are. (If you want to say instead that Kanazawa co-authored papers with Lynn, saying that is fine.) 103.47.145.169 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Since "The Master" didnt sign his quotes and you were the one to respond to my additions to the quotes, I assumed wrongly that you had posted them. I dont think you are Master, but you clearly are Occam - if it wasnt clear before with your simultaneous postings here and at wikipediocracy it is now beyond any reasonable doubt.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you've now voiced your suspicions at ANI, where they belong. If the admins there think your evidence is compelling and they ask me to stop posting here, then I will. But until then, this talk page should be for discussing the article.

The Master and I have both made our concerns known. I want you to make the lede more compliant with the Manual of Style, which may include adding more sources that criticize Lynn for his connection to the Pioneer Fund. He wants you to not disregard the small number of authors who think positively of Lynn. These are reasonable requests, even if you dislike us.

I see you've now edited your comments about the quotes, which is good. I hope you also can try to make the article better in all respects, and not just just make it conform better to your own opinion of Lynn. 103.47.145.165 (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoring the 2014 lede

There is a problem with the old version of the lede restored by user:Maunus. A few months ago most of the material in this version of the lede was moved into the body of the article, [1] and Maunus has restored it to the lede without removing it from the place where it was moved. All of this material now appears in the article twice. The first two sentences of the lede's second paragraph are identical to the middle paragraph of the "Early life and career" section, and the rest of the lede is identical to the "published work" section. The lede is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, but it isn't supposed to duplicate material in the article body word-for-word.

There also is a second issue with this old version, which I previously addressed in my edit here. WP:LABEL states that when using terms such as "racist" or "white supremacist", articles must always use in-text attribution. Complying with MOS is especially important in a BLP article, which this one is. Restoring this old version of the lede has restored a probable BLP violation.

BLP policy requires that BLP violations be removed immediately, but I suspect these two problems were a mistake on Maunus's part, so I'll give him the opportunity to self-revert before I do it. 103.47.145.151 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• The lead summarizes the body of the article, it is supposed to occur twice. Not verbatim though. There is no difficulty in adding in text attribution to the large number of people who have described Lynn and his research as racist. The question is whether we would want such a long string of names in the lead. This is not a case where one people have expressed the opinion, which would make attribution necessary, this is a large group of scholars who have printed it in reliable sources - which are duly cited. It is therefore not a BLP violation. If there is consensus to insert a series of names of people who have described Lynns work and perspectives as racist into the lead then that can be arranged. But citing BLP is a red herring here. Describing someone whose work and views have been so widely and harshly repudiated as Lynns as simply "controversial" is disinformation and misleading in the extreme. Literally Lynn is a textbook example of a scientific racist researcher (see Gross 2014).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot these sentences: "Lynn was educated at Bristol Grammar School and University of Cambridge in England. He has worked as lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter, and as professor of psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and at Ulster University at Coleraine." Those also appear verbatim twice, once in the lede and once in the body.

There are two other places in the lede that require inline attribution: "the Pioneer Fund, an organisation that has been described as racist in nature", and "Mankind Quarterly, which has been called a white supremacist publication." The accusation is cited to William Tucker in the first case, and Joe Kincheloe in the second case.

If lots of people have made these accusations, it should not be hard to add inline attributions there also. But if you decide to add more sources, please make sure they are sources that specifically criticize Richard Lynn for his involvement with the Pioneer Fund and with Mankind Quarterly. If it is cited to sources that just criticize the Pioneer Fund and Mankind Quarterly in general, without mentioning Lynn, citing them to criticize Lynn would be original synthesis. 103.47.145.151 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Pioneer fund is not a person. Your requests for sources here is disingenious as more than ample sources crituqueing Lynn specifically as well as his involvement with the Pioner fund are already included and quoted. This is a case in which those who wish to protect Lynns reputation would do wisely not to request more sources - since the lead as it is now (the 2014) is already very mild compared to the actual description of Lynn and his work in the relevant body of literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not actually requesting more sources; the sources currently cited for this sentence (Tucker and Kincheloe) are adequate. I'm only saying that we should include inline attribution for them. Note that WP:LABEL is not specific to BLPs - it applies to all articles and subjects. 103.47.145.151 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to add more inline attribution, it would make for poor writing since there is already plenty of inline and citation attribution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is a style guideline not a policy. Using it to support the introduction stylistically poor writing is against its intent. Attributing a view to a single author in-line for views and descriptors that are so widely used about the topic here is a misrepresentation. If you push this we will have to have an RfC on the necessity of inline attribution in this case.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition to Kincheloe and Tucker, what other sources specifically criticize Lynn for his involvement with the Pioneer Fund and Mankind Quarterly? If your objection to attributing this criticism to Tucker and Kincheloe is that it's much more widespread than those two authors, there should be sources demonstrating how widespread it is. Then the inline attribution can be to everyone who's making the accusation, not just to Tucker and Kincheloe. 103.47.145.151 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dont worry, when I am back from hollidays next week I will start collecting the full range of works that critique Lynn and integrate them into the article.

Per your suggestion above, I've requested a third opinion on this article. (Your suggestion was to start a RFC, but that seems unnecessary when the disagreement is between just two people.) 103.47.145.151 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, here is another issue that needs to be addressed: Some of this information is out of date. The Pioneer Fund has been defunct since Rushton's death in 2012, so the sentence about Lynn being on its board of directors should be in the past tense. It also is out of date to refer to the Pioneer Fund financially supporting Mankind Quarterly, especially now that that journal has changed publishers from the Council for Social and Economic Studies (which was funded by Pioneer) to the University of Ulster. 103.47.145.151 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I will start the RfC - this is not between two people. The 2014 lead was stable for a long time, and seemd to enjoy consensus. The argumentation regarding the pioneer fund is also disingenious - the pioneer foundation is not 'defunct' for wikipedia purposes untill souces describe it as such. Lynn's institute at the U of U has been funded by the pionner fund all along - and Lynn is himself in charge of what remains of the fund- so that is not at all a major chnge in the editorship.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, I failed quite spectacularly at providing my 3O; the template misfired again, and I didn't catch it. The discussion seems to have moved on a little. ·maunus, 103.47.145.151, are you still interested in a third opinion on this particular dispute? If so please ping me, and I will do a better job this time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) I don't think it is necessary no, but please feel free to provide any insights you have.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs): As I said at ANI, I think I'm finished participating in this discussion whether I get blocked or not, but I would still like you to provide your input here. 103.47.145.148 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: Assuming for a moment that the the dispute centers on this, I think there's a number of relevant guidelines and policies, including WP:LABEL, WP:INTEXT, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I think the crux of this issue lies in how common, or how exceptional, the statements in question are, so I searched through the source material. There seems to be a very large body of sources, highly reliable, that make the same statements as Tucker and Kincheloe. Many of these have already been cited in the article. Therefore, saying "described as racist in nature by psychologist William H. Tucker," for instance, is problematic, because it gives the impression that he is the only one to have said it, when that is decidedly not the case. "described as racist in nature by scholars such as psychologist William H. Tucker" would be an option; however, it is poor writing, and also gives somewhat undue weight to Tucker as a critic. Another option is listing every critic; but this would be quite ridiculous, considering how many there are. Given that nobody is trying to add the phrase "Lynn is a racist," but only "Lynn's work has been described as racist," I personally feel the current sentence structure is quite appropriate. If anything, it is highly generous to the subject of the article, which is perhaps appropriate because of BLP; but certainly BLP does not require further qualification than is already present. Hope that helps. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I see from recent editor activity on this article that some ungrammatical (that is, English that simply isn't correct English) cruft has accumulated in the article. There seem to be a good number of watchers of this article, and I encourage everyone here to look on as I (and presumably other people) slog in to do article cleanup. I suggest we take a harder look at sources and look at what current mainstream textbooks and reference manuals in psychology say about Lynn's life and career, the main topic of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 15:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen you have removed some citations and added {{cn}}. I hope you can restore them back soon.

You said in the edit summary:"first edit, for WP:NPOV ". Everything in that paragraph is supported by sources mentioned. I cannot figure out why you think it's not neutral because even Flynn's paper is included.

I wonder why have you even removed a source authored by a thoughtful researcher you admire? --The Master (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The article still needs a lot of cleanup, but the procedure meanwhile is not to hunt up every obscure primary source to overemphasize one minor hagiographical point about Richard Lynn. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 22:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot provide sources directly support the phrase "only a minority of authors", I will change it to "some authors".--The Master (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not an "average," but a "range"

In this sentence, "Ashkenazi Jews average [sic] 107–115 in the US and Britain due to their better performance in verbal and reasoning tests even though they performed lower in visual and spatial ability tests, but those in Israel average lower", "average" is a misnomer: the average is "111." Or correct to read, "Ashkenazi Jews average 107 and 115 in the US and Britain, respectively, due to their better performance in verbal and reasoning tests even though they performed lower in visual and spatial ability tests, but those in Israel average lower.[57]" if that is what you are saying. (From "Race and national differences in intelligence".) Autodidact1 (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

Please complete this sentence: "He also believes that socioeconomic status." (From "Dysgenics and eugenics".) Autodidact1 (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Lynn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022043901/http://mysite.du.edu/~psherry/bellcrv.html to http://mysite.du.edu/~psherry/bellcrv.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022043901/http://mysite.du.edu/~psherry/bellcrv.html to http://mysite.du.edu/~psherry/bellcrv.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://riskreduction.soceco.uci.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Psychopathic-personality-and-racial-ethnic-differences-reconsidered.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

“Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it”

That's the title of an opinion piece in The Guardian today which mentions the subject of the article.[2] It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." It discusses Lynn. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

sorry - was scrolling on tablet. Did not mean to remove; thanks for reverting. But the criticisms made in the article all cone from the guardian journalist. If we're criticizing peer reviewed research, we need either other peer reviewed research saying it's bad or a notable expert saying it's bad, and saini doesn't seem to count. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Happens to often to me on my iPad. The author is Angela Saini. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A source important for editing this article.

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010d.pdf

"Raven's test performance of sub-Saharan Africans: Average performance, psychometric properties, and the Flynn Effect" — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Book review to cite here

Intelligence Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 94-96 doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.08.001 Book review Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary hypothesis. N.J. Mackintosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lynn also wrote a 1979 paper finding that Irish children had an average IQ of 93, which he attributed to Irish kids learning the Irish language which he suggested lowered their English verbal/language scores. For those who don't know, Lynn is a Unionist (protestant) at the University of Ulster, in a notoriously Unionist and anti-Catholic town, Colraine. So, he's from a community culturally hostile to (Catholic) Irish/Gaelic culture. Catholic schools in Northern Ireland teach Irish. Protestant schools don't. Funny how Lynn finds cultural reasons for Irish to have a low IQ, but genetic reasons for racial differences in IQ. - Anonymous Poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2012‎

Further reading

• Stone, Linda; Lurquin, Paul F.; Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca (2007). Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis. Malden (Massachusetts): Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-5089-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
• Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Collection of sources

• Sussman, Robert Wald (2014). The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea. Harvard University Press. p. 272. Just as Grant and many other earlier eugenicists were, Lynn is xenophobic and fears human variety, change and multiculturalism; this cultural heritage has colored his worldview for forty years. Lynn is the perfect Pioneer fund grant recipient and leader. He does very little science, and the ´science´ he does is extremely poor. However, he is extremely prolific and spreads racist themes backed by a false an ill-begotten reputation of academic respectability.
• Eric Alterman (2003). What Liberal Media. Basic Books. (quotes Kamin's description of Lynn, and critiques his relations to MQ and Pioneer, p. 101)
• Gross, Richard (2014). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour 7th Edition. (Under the heading "the political and racist nature of IQ tests" quotes Sweet 2004 saying "Go to the website of Richard Lynn"..."and you will find reams of racist pseudoscience".)
• Celia Roberts (2007). Messengers of Sex: Hormones, Biomedicine and Feminism. Cambridge University Press. p. 134. Thus Lynn enlists hormones to reproduce the well-worn racist argument that blac men are lower forms of life than white men, while simultaneously positioning Asian men as less masculine than white men.
• Hugh Coolican (2014). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Psychology Press. p. 281. (gives the relation between Lynn, MQ and the pioneer fund as an example of ethically problematic research practices, cautioning the reader to consider not publishing in venues that are connected to Lynn or the Pioneer fund)
• Wilson, Carter A. (1996). Racism: From Slavery to Advanced Capitalism. SAGE. p. 229. At best Lynn's approach is racial propaganda or biased research driven by a strong prejudice against blacks and a strong need to believe in their genetic inferiority. At worst, Lynn's research arises out of a malicious and dishonest effort to demonstrate the genetic inferiority of blacks
• Kamin, Leon. "Behind the Bell Curve" (PDF). Scientific American: 100. Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with the scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity
• Valone, David A. (2002). "Richard Lynn: Eugenics: A Reassessment, review". Isis. 93 (3): 534. doi:10.1086/374143.
• Barnett, Susan M.; Williams, Wendy (2004). "National Intelligence and The Emperor's New Clothes". PsycCRITIQUES. 49 (4): 389–396. doi:10.1037/004367. Among this book's strengths are that it argues for a point of view unpopular within the scientific community, it relies on hard data to make its points, its organization and clarity. Also, the book is expansive in its thinking and argumentation. All of these strengths considered, however, we believe that the arguments advanced in the book are flawed by an omnipresent logical fallacy and confusion of correlation with causation that undermines the foundation of the book.
• Valencia, Richard R. (2010). Dismantling Contemporary Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice. Routledge. pp. 56=61.
• Richards, Graham (2004). Race, Racism and Psychology: Towards a Reflexive History. Routledge. p. 280.
• Ferber, Abby L. (2012). Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism. Routledge.
• Neisser, Ulric (2004). "Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists?". PsycCRITIQUES. 49 (1): 5–7. doi:10.1037/004224.
• Gelb, Steven A. (1997). Heart of Darkness: The Discreet Charm of the Hereditarian Psychologist. Vol. 19. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
• Kenny, M. G. (2002). "Toward a racial abyss: Eugenics, Wickliffe Draper, and the origins of The Pioneer Fund". J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 38: 259–283. doi:10.1002/jhbs.10063.
• Mehler, Barry (1989). "Foundation for fascism: The new eugenics movement in the United States". Patterns of Prejudice. 23 (4).
• Newby, Robert G.; Newby, Diane E. (1995). "The Bell Curve: Another Chapter in the Continuing Political Economy of Racism". American Behavioral Scientist. 39 (1): 12–24. doi:10.1177/0002764295039001003.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Kamin's opinions.

You write : Leon Kamin faulted Lynn for "disregarding scientific objectivity", "misrepresenting data", and for "racism".[97] Kamin argues that the studies of cognitive ability of Africans in Lynn's meta-analysis cited by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray show strong cultural bias. Kamin also reproached Lynn for concocting IQ values from test scores that have no correlation to IQ.

Actually, Kamin's judgement is at best dubious and the accusation of "racism", which appeals to political correctness, has nothing to do with science.

"show strong cultural bias" must be put in quotes ; this is Kamin's opinion.

"IQ values from test scores that have no correlation to IQ" is again only Kamin's opinion. It is particularly crazy as you can see in the very note attached : At the very least, you should write : "test scores on Raven's Progressive Matrices that that he pretends have no correlation to IQ" which is obviously false as you most probably know, even if "John Raven repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs" ! Raven's Progressive Matrices are the best test possible, culture free, short of Elementary Cognitive Tasks.Phg64 (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A probable misunderstanding.

You write : Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the "Flynn" effect) on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries (p.?)[6]

There is no need of "an assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved"

The correction is only between the scales of the tests at different times so that an IQ of say 70 in 1960 will be adjusted as an IQ of 60 in a 1990 scale. This is accurate for raw performance. BUT meanwhile, these people may have profited from a Flynn effect as the Westerners did, and so deserve an IQ of 70 or even more.

Thus I think it's better to say : Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the "Flynn" effect) who took tests scaled at different times although these people meanwhile may have profited from a Flynn effect as the Westerners did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phg64 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been absolutely no misunderstandinhg here, except that you don't seem to understand that we have policies which must be followed.

The edit summary you provided for for your edit reads: "some corrections on dishonest Lynn-bashing", indicating that your edits were made from a specific POV. [3].

In your edit, you added the sentence: "But a "repugnant" theory is not necessarily false." This is your opinion, since you provided no source to support the comment.

Further, you added the bolded word to this sentence:

"Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the "Flynn" effect) who took tests scaled at different times although these people meanwhile may have profited from a Flynn effect as the Westerners did (so that there is no need of an assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved)"

The original sentence was sourced, and you changed its meaning to be diametrically the opposite of what the source said. Flynn effect

Next, you added "(ref needed)" to sourced direct quotes, which do not require additional sourcing, and added "accused", which was similarly unnecessary.

Following that, you added the bolded words to the following sourced sentence:

"Kamin also reproached Lynn for concocting IQ values from test scores on Progressive Matrices that that he pretends have no correlation to IQ."

This changes the meaning of the sourced sentence, and, again, introduces your own personal unsourced opinion concering Kamin.

Next you added the bolded words to this sentence:

"In February 2018, the Ulster University students' union, self-describing as "a hub for social events, entertainment, trips and activities", issued a motion calling for the university to revoke Lynn's title as emeritus professor."

apparently in an attempt to minimize the impact of this because it did no concur with your personal opinion. You then added " regardless of his scientific achievements", a personal evaluation, to the sentence about the university removing Lynn's title.

Every single one of these changes violates the Wikipedia policy on editing with a neutral point of view, in addition to failing to provide verified sources. You also changed the meaning of existing sourced information.

As I told you on your talk page, this behavior, if continued, is very likely to lead to a block from future editing of Wikipedia. I'd advise you not to make edits of this sort again, either on this article or on any other, and if you are not willing to accomodate yourself to our policies, I would suggest that Wikipedia is not a place you will be comfortable working in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Your response is completely disproportionate for a one time only minor editing.

My first remark on Flynn effect is one of pure logic; the argument presented is absurd; if you want to inform about Kamin's pseudo-arguments, that's OK but you must put it inside quotes. What is strange is that I didn't even say that Lynn was right but simply gave a correct argument, in the same direction, instead of Kamin's (?) faulty one!

"accused" because "racism" is not a scientific argument but a moral judgment and an insult. Kamin's appeal to political correcteness is pathetic.

Kamin's sentence on Progressive Matrices is incredibly stupid or dishonest; publishing that sort of pretentions discredits WP. Are you really supposed tu publish "sourced" information that is obviously false?

You say I gave my opinion. That's true but the original article also gives a one-sided opinion, with few exceptions. The very selection of quotations is evidently oriented: not a word on Lynn's well argumented response to Kamin. There are far less citations from Lynn than from his oppoonents.

That said, this article on Lynn is not the worst I've ever read so I thought I could bring some help. Phg64 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Your personal opinions, analyses, and interpretations are not allowed. Every opinion must come from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over language of the lede

The status quo of this article's lede has this sentence:

Lynn studies intelligence and is known for his belief in racial differences in intelligence.

This is sourced to:

Revoir, Paul; Firth, Niall (14 October 2009), "Channel 4 to screen controversial documentary that asks whether IQ is linked to race", Daily Mail

which says:

"He interviews Richard Lynn, emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, who has amassed data which he believes shows there is a global league table of intelligence between the races."

An editor first attempted to change the sentence in question to"

Lynn studies intelligence and is known for his empirical research on racial differences in intelligence.

This was reverted by me on the grounds that Lynn was notable because of his beliefs, not because of his research per se. The editor reverted, and another editor restored to the original. The disputing editor then attempted to change the language to:

Lynn studies intelligence and is known for his conclusions on racial differences in intelligence.

I reverted to the status quo with the edit summary "'conclusions on' implies that it's justified by his research, something almost every other expert on the subject disagrees with". I think that "belief in" more precisely describes the situation. The editor reverted, with the apparent attempt to re-open the entire race and intelligence debate, which is how I interpret this edit summary:

"Your claim is not in accordance with the state of current empirical research." [4]

I have two thoughts on this:

• As I said, "conclusions on" implies justification from the research, while "belief in" leaves it more ambigous. Also, the source cited uses "which he believes shows..." and not "which he concludes shows...". While the two words can be near equivalents, they are not the same, and "belief" -- because it leaves open the how and why of Lynn's views -- is more appropriate.

• This is not the place to re litigate the race and intelligence debate -- if there was an appropriate place to do that on Wikipedia, it would be on Talk:Race and intelligence -- but if it is going to brought up here, it must be done on this talk page, not through edit summaries, and the article should remain in the status quo ante during that discussion, which I do not suggest should be held.

Any thoughts about this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• One additional thought: certainly we can find a better source for that sentence than the [Daily Mail]], can't we? Lynn's views are well-known, and he does not deny them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Added the SPLC source, already used in the article, to support the statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough summary, and I apologize for not immediately bringing the discussion to the talk page. I think Lynn should be described as a researcher, not as a political figure. He has not been accused of tampering with data or with results, but of premature conclusions, or as some will say, of conclusions that do not fit neatly into a certain ideological narrative. Quite importantly, it is the right, if not the duty, of an empirical researcher to draw conclusions that do not fall into the bias called the moralistic fallacy. If you think his conclusions are obviously wrong, you may of course be correct, but I am not aware that the state of the art in peer-reviewed literature points strongly in that direction. If you can elaborate on your view that his controversial conclusions are not in accordance with the state of the art of current research, that would be much appreciated. I feel that this is really a crisis of academic transdisciplinarity, in which the goal of natural science collides with the goal of sociology as well as, say, journalism. I think this is relevant to the "conclusions" (more substantiated) vs. "belief" (less substatiated) discussion. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

We have to go by the sources and reflect what they say is most noteworthy about him. The key thing here is that he is not noteworthy for doing any research generally considered to be significant, groundbreaking, high-quality or important. Indeed, he is, if anything, infamous for his lack of scientific rigor and his aggressive insistence on producing whatever conclusions support his racial political agenda. He is therefore noteworthy because of the political beliefs, not as a scientist, and the main focus of the article needs to be on that aspect. You can see the relevant citations regarding Lynn's poor academic reputation in the lead, eg. "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with the scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity" is how he is summarized in Scientific American. To be clear (in case it isn't obvious), he has, in fact, been accused of intentionally misrepresenting the data to suit his political agenda - in fact, that's the main thing he's famous for. You're also mistaken when you say that Lynn is accused of conclusions that do not fit an ideological narrative; in fact, the reverse is true. As the article says (with capacious sourcing), he is infamous specifically because he does aggressively twist his results to fit his ideological narrative on race. It's absurd to suggest that he avoids "ideological narratives" when the lead has some fifteen-plus academic sources, near-unanimously describing him as someone who approaches his field with a vitriolically clear social agenda. Other quotes from the sources: Lynn’s reassessment of eugenics is really little more than a rehashing of the eugenic ideology of a century ago, including its overt racism and xenophobia. Note the specific description that he adds no additional research to long-discredited theories, merely ideological campaigning for them. And, similarly, At best Lynn's approach is racial propaganda or biased research driven by a strong prejudice against blacks and a strong need to believe in their genetic inferiority. At worst, Lynn's research arises out of a malicious and dishonest effort to demonstrate the genetic inferiority of blacks. Again, note that the objection here is not moral, as you say, but scientific - it is Lynn, not his opponents, who has a reputation for constantly pushing his ideological agenda through distortions and misrepresentations of the data in a malicious and dishonest manner that reflects a scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. I find it completely baffling that you could say that his work doesn't neatly fit an ideological narrative - fitting his work to his ideological narrative is specifically what Lynn is most famous for. --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Response to the first edit of your response. You say: "He is not noteworthy for doing any research generally considered to be significant, groundbreaking, high-quality or important" -- This does not seem to be correct. The Flynn effect is also called the Lynn-Flynn effect, or (sometimes) the FLynn effect, which in itself suggests that he is a notable intelligence researcher. This effect is, as you may know, a cornerstone phenomenon within intelligence research. He has published research on intelligence in the journal Nature[5] (this is the article that "rediscovered" the Flynn effect), and he has many peer-reviewed publications, e.g. in the high-prestige journal Intelligence (journal). To take an example, this article by Estonian researchers at the University of Tartu[6], published in a high-prestige, peer-reviewed journal, is based on the research of Lynn. If you do a literature search, you will find that he is (was) a notable and accepted, if controversial, researcher within psychology. As for the fifteen-plus academic sources, only few of them are peer-reviewed articles in relevant journals. The citations include: A book review in Isis (scope: history of science, not psychology); the book The Myth of Race which according to its Wikipedia page has been criticised for being one-sided in claiming that race is only a social construct; an op-ed in American Behavioral Scientist which gives historical context, an article which attacks the ethics of Lynn's funding [7], an article in Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies which again gives historical context. Please also note that Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but a popular science magazine. The book review from Scientific American which is cited is, moreover, from the 1990s, and thus not up to date on the latest research. And the list goes on, I assume that the rest of the citations suffer from similar limitations. As much as I am suspicious of Lynn's apparent social agenda, you need to at least provide (1)peer-reviewed sources from (2)active researchers, from (3)Lynn's particular field of study, in order to completely discredit his empirical research, which appears to be your goal. You need to substantiate that his research is false: in natural science it is not valid evidence to point out that a conclusion is inconvenient or that it can have certain political bearings. As for the racial hatred argument, I have a question: Why should white supremacist claim that East Asians have an intelligence that is superior to them? If they simply cooked the research, why didn't they just make whites the most intelligent race? This does not make any sense. Moreover, you can just as well argue that racial prejudice against East Asians and Europeans can be behind some of the attacks on the apparent state of the art of this particular branch of intelligence research. My advice is: Please get up to date on intelligence research and, if you wish to criticize/slaughter Lynn's empirical research, provide proper, up-to-date citations from relevant journals. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As the article states, a special issue was dedicated to Lynn on his 80th birthday, in the peer-reviewed, high-impact scientific journal Personality and Individual Differences. Again, this is not a sign that he is a nobody within his field, and it is not a sign that his empirical research, within his specific field of study, is universally discredited. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that he has something not-quite-named after him over twenty years ago is hardly proof that that is the source of his notability, especially when it's something that even you are conceding is not the main thing he's famous for. The sources in the article more than support the fact that he's noteworthy primarily for his politics, his personal views on race and intelligence, and his unwillingness to decouple these things from his research; casually skimming the sources for that and then saying "oh, I'm sure the other twelve are just as bad" is hardly an answer. (Especially when none of the complaints you're making actually discredit them as sources - you're welcome to take them to WP:RS if you want, but I don't think you'll get anywhere.) Those are the sources we have, so those are what we must follow. In attacking them so broadly, and trying to construct a counter-narrative of your own, you seem to be trying to perform original research, or demanding it from me; a lot of the rest of what you're saying is broad meaningless statements about being "up to date on intelligence research" or the like, which isn't going to get you anywhere without cites. Academic papers aren't always the best way to provide a broad summary of someone's reputation (and can even delve into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH if we're trying to combine them together into something that isn't clear from any one of them.) As it is, the article has a broad range of high-quality cites describing his research on race and intelligence as discredited, politically-driven, or generally in poor repute, and only a few cites from mostly-obscure people who work at WP:FRINGE outlets like his Pioneer Fund supporting him. If you want to dispute this characterization, it is pointless to argue with me - you must produce similarly high-quality sources supporting that aspect of his research specifically (if, as you claimed, you are "up to date" and modern research has vindicated him, it should be easy to find mainstream, uncontroversial sources saying so in as many words. Given the breadth and volume of his critics, it should be easy to find high-profile, mainstream rebuttals. That aside, if you want more up-to-date criticism - keeping in mind, of course, that Lynn himself has not been prolific recently and that most of his most infamous work is in the past - you can see eg. here, which dissects the flaws in one of his recent papers at length. But, again, we are better off relying on secondary sources that summarize the full body of his work rather than trying to summarize individual scientific studies directly. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I can agree with your statements on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I do not agree with your synthesis of the state of the art on the research. Please remember that in the epistemology of empirical research and natural science, vague accusations and personal attacks are much less valid than concrete rebuttals. The discussion in the aforementioned 2010 issue [8] can serve as a brief introduction to what the actual debate looks like in research literature (as opposed to e.g. in The Guardian). A keen observer might conclude that there are valid observations and arguments on both sides of the debate. At the same time, it is a peculiar subject-matter, which apparently easily becomes connected to certain biases. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Why revert?

The article as it now stands contains notable inaccuracies and grammatical errors. I attempted to correct a few of those. Each time, my editing was reverted to the previous state, which makes the article look simply prejudiced to the intelligent, knowledgeable reader.

The article at the moment falsely states, for example, that the concept of GDP did not exist in the early nineteenth century, despite a history of use then already several generations old (the article in Wikipedia on "Gross domestic product", sourced from the well-regarded The Economist amongst others, clearly shows the origins and development of the concept; I commend a careful reading of those sources to these reverters). To state that Richard Lynn's use of GDP is flawed because the concept didn't exist in the nineteenth century is overkill at best, and distorts the entire entry on the man into a biased opposition to the man himself instead of an objective summary of his life and work.

In the same paragraph (and I dealt with only one paragraph -- quite enough to do), reversion was made to restore a blatant grammatical error: "direct evidence ... were ... available". I'm uncertain whether the reverter was sloppy, careless, or ignorant; but such inarticulation certainly denigrates both Wikipedia and its editors' intelligence.

Why, then, was this reversion made? To make Wikipedia look biased? Because editors are inattentive? Or because someone or another has such pride in his own writing that he cannot abide correction? I'm baffled. Please tell me why errors are restored. Firstorm (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)