4 ms·

Have you considered the possibility that your opinion is just not representative of the scientific consensus?

by epgui 7mo ago

charcircuit 7mo ago
Wikipedia does not care about scientific consensus. It just summarizes "reliable" secondary sources.
- epgui 7mo ago
  Wrong in two different ways: - this tends to approximate consensus. - Wikipedia does care, and has a policy on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus
  - charcircuit 7mo ago
    >and has a policy on this Look at the top of that page. >This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.
    - epgui 7mo ago
      That’s like arguing that “forming a queue at the store” is not an official policy. The document outlines normative / prescriptive approaches that are followed in practice.
Auracle 7mo ago
I asked ChatGPT on whether or not it was the "scientific consensus." "Anonymous surveys of intelligence experts reveal division: a 2016 survey found that about 49% attributed 50% or more of the Black-White gap to genetics, while over 80% attributed at least 20%; an earlier 1980s survey showed similar splits. These views are more common in private or anonymous contexts, contrasting with public statements from bodies like the APA that find no support for genetic explanations." Hm, sure seems like Wikipedia should probably have a more balanced, nuanced discussion considering the experts are split at least 50/50.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
  The "scientific consensus" the parent comment mentioned is referring to published studies, with data to back up their conclusions. The numbers you are citing seem to be from an opinion poll. Where did any of the 49% surveyed get the idea that "50% or more of the Black-White gap" can be "attributed" to genetics? What is their methodology for the attribution? Bringing up an opinion poll as a counterpoint makes it read like you're arguing that Wikipedia should focus less on fact and more on opinion. Of course, you're free to think what you wish, but I suspect that's where most disagree.
  - Auracle 7mo ago
    We don't really have "intelligence genes" mapped out, if they exist. Therefore, something like this, from Wikipedia: "Genetics do not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial or ethnic groups" is effectively a lie. Genetics certainly don't explain all the differences in IQ. They very well might not explain the majority of the the difference. However, considering we know that intelligence is quite heritable along with various adoption and twin studies that have happened throughout the decades (along with simple freaking logic), we have a pretty good idea that it explains at least some of the difference. That "opinion poll," while not super-great because only some elected to reply, was a poll of experts in the fields that study this stuff, not random people. A real unbiased article would mention that (and perhaps whatever counterarguments there are), not straight up do the encyclopedia equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "nah uh I can't hear you."

Have you considered the possibility that your opinion is just not representative of the scientific consensus?

by epgui 7mo ago

Have you considered the possibility that your opinion is just not representative of the scientific consensus?

charcircuit 7mo ago

Wikipedia does not care about scientific consensus. It just summarizes "reliable" secondary sources.

epgui 7mo ago
Wrong in two different ways: - this tends to approximate consensus. - Wikipedia does care, and has a policy on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus
- charcircuit 7mo ago
  >and has a policy on this Look at the top of that page. >This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.
  - epgui 7mo ago
    That’s like arguing that “forming a queue at the store” is not an official policy. The document outlines normative / prescriptive approaches that are followed in practice.

Auracle 7mo ago

I asked ChatGPT on whether or not it was the "scientific consensus." "Anonymous surveys of intelligence experts reveal division: a 2016 survey found that about 49% attributed 50% or more of the Black-White gap to genetics, while over 80% attributed at least 20%; an earlier 1980s survey showed similar splits. These views are more common in private or anonymous contexts, contrasting with public statements from bodies like the APA that find no support for genetic explanations." Hm, sure seems like Wikipedia should probably have a more balanced, nuanced discussion considering the experts are split at least 50/50.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
The "scientific consensus" the parent comment mentioned is referring to published studies, with data to back up their conclusions. The numbers you are citing seem to be from an opinion poll. Where did any of the 49% surveyed get the idea that "50% or more of the Black-White gap" can be "attributed" to genetics? What is their methodology for the attribution? Bringing up an opinion poll as a counterpoint makes it read like you're arguing that Wikipedia should focus less on fact and more on opinion. Of course, you're free to think what you wish, but I suspect that's where most disagree.
- Auracle 7mo ago
  We don't really have "intelligence genes" mapped out, if they exist. Therefore, something like this, from Wikipedia: "Genetics do not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial or ethnic groups" is effectively a lie. Genetics certainly don't explain all the differences in IQ. They very well might not explain the majority of the the difference. However, considering we know that intelligence is quite heritable along with various adoption and twin studies that have happened throughout the decades (along with simple freaking logic), we have a pretty good idea that it explains at least some of the difference. That "opinion poll," while not super-great because only some elected to reply, was a poll of experts in the fields that study this stuff, not random people. A real unbiased article would mention that (and perhaps whatever counterarguments there are), not straight up do the encyclopedia equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "nah uh I can't hear you."