Talk:Dysgenics/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Dysgenics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

• See upcoming Dispatch at WP:FCDW/June 30, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Explaining this more explicitly:

• Consistent and complete cite journal templates for PubMed-indexed articles can be generated by plugging the PMID number into Diberri's template.
• Naming of repeat refs is explained at WP:FN.
• Footnote placement is explained at WP:FN.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This sentence of the intro: Richard Lynn in his book Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations claims that genotypic IQ is declining at a rate between 0.57 and 1.6 points per generation throughout the United States.[7][8][9][10][11] has the problem that it was modified, the original sentence saying that a "few studies over the last few decades were mentioning concern of a dysgenic trend" (or something similar). Now, at least the first three if not the first four references don't support Lynn's detailed claim which is now in the intro. Rather than remove these references and undo part of SandyGeorgia's hard work, I figured I'd bring this concern here for editorial discussion. My suggestion would be to go back to the previous, more general statement that was there before.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime (while you wait for resolution), an inline {{failed verification}} tag can be used to indicate that the cited source doesn't support the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Like this :-) ^{[failed verification]} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Duh! Gee, thanks! Forgotten my head somewhere, I must have...--Ramdrake (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of dysgenics does appear in those citations, though it may not mention those exact words. EgraS (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the intro to patch things up as best I could.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of this conflict.

Zero g summarizes the results of various studies on dysgenics.[1]

Ramdrake ignores the inuse tag by SandyGeorgia, and rewords the text in a pov manner to describe the conclusion of the results of the studies as the work of Richard Lynn, even when each study reported its own conclusions.[2]

Zero g adds another source, assuming good faith from Ramdrake and that Ramrake will reword his statement once he realizes that some sources are dated past the publishing of Dysgenics (book).[3]

Instead of editing in a non tendentious manner, Ramdrake starts deleting sources.[4]

Zero g fixes the awkward intro giving the casual readers a neutral description of the results of the various studies researching a dysgenic trend in intelligence.[5]

Now, instead of revert warring and not assuming good faith, can you point out what source you dispute, and why you dispute it Ramdrake? --Zero g (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The term 'dysgenic' appears 6 times in the "Intelligence and Family Size Reconsidered" source. --Zero g (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For best results, can we please focus discussions on the article, rather than assumptions of what the editors may or may not be thinking? Thanks, Elonka 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My issue is with the wording of the claim. The numbers as they appear are from Lynn's works. Without the numbers, at least four of the five cites would support the statement. Also, please note that I didn't remove any sources, I just added a {{failed verification}} tag, which is hardly the same.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire section is original research, uncited trivia; I began to re-write it to avoid the listiness and trivia, and found nothing that could be salvaged. I suggest deleting the entire section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I took care of it --Zero g (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better (except for all the MoS cleanup :-) Please see my edit summaries for links to relevent MoS guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've placed reading WP:MoS on my todo list, it'll be quite the read. --Zero g (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone has started something that may look like a POV fork here. Additional comments as to whether this is indeed a POV-fork are requested.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A merge of Fertility and intelligence with Total fertility rate may be appropriate. It would improve the latter article to expand the discussion of the factors affecting the total fertility rate. The current name is misleading as the content only discusses human fertility. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, what you've done to the article makes it look much less like a POV fork.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this issue was part of this discussion a while ago and it was agreed that such an article should be made. Fertility and intelligence is certainly an important enough topic in its own right right. EgraS (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As argued by Ramrake before, WP:SYN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE makes the dysgenics article particularly unfit to discuss the observed correlations between fertility and intelligence. As it is, Dysgenics is a synergy science, combining the research of fertility and human traits, with the research of human traits and heritability, with the research of the impact of human traits on the human environment. This makes it not so much different from eugenic research, with the big exception that eugenics also involves policy.

I don't think the fertility and intelligence article belongs any more in the dysgenics article than the inheritance of intelligence article, or for that matter the crime and intelligence article which will undoubtedly be created by (someone who Wobble likes to refer to as) a right wing nut.

Ideally the dysgenics article should briefly discuss fertility, heritability of a trait, and correlates of that trait considered as negative. --Zero g (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors are now removing from the intro the statement that a dysgenic trend in humans is hypothetical, saying it is unsourced. I'm not aware that scientists will expressly make statements about what doesn't exist, or what isn't proven, most often. I would insist that the description of human dysgenics as hypothetical remains until a representative source (i.e. a statement by a body of researchers) stating that it exists is found. Otherwise, we are again asking for a proof of absence to justify a statement of absence of proof, which is a logical fallacy.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sources I listed at The Gene Bomb may be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the generally positive reviews of the book Dysgenics by Lynn I'd say the scientific consensus is that a dysgenic trend does exist. It would be properly described in the article as well, if you wouldn't edit war over the IQ and fertility research. --Zero g (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How could anyone claim that the scientific consensus is that there is a dysgenic trend in humans society? Let's see a decent review from Nature or Science, something with a scientific consensus would certainly have got reviews in both of those journals. The last paper on dysgenics in Nature was from 1997,[6] and the last in Science was 1970.[7] Besides the whole of science is based on hypotheses, to claim it's not hypothetical is to claim it's not scientific. Alun (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, lets not add redundancy by stating a scientific theory is hypothetical. --Zero g (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in the intro does it say it's a scientific theory then? Say it's hypothetical or that it's a scientific theory, but now it says neither. Alun (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have these sources, but if the last good review was 1997, we should be citing that source, no? (And taking it into consideration for WP:UNDUE.) How is it that this article is being written without the Nature article being cited even once? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Devlin, B., Daniels, M., & Roeder, K. (1997) The heritability of IQ. Nature 1997;388:468-471 has been well-received. It has been cited about 1500 times since publication according to Google Scholar.[8] This can be compared to the results for "R. Lynn (1996) Dysgenics: Genetic deterioration in modern populations or Lynn and Van Court (2004) "New evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States ". A similar search finds 27 and 9 citations of the Lynn works respectively, a significant fraction of which are book reviews and self-citations.[9][10] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this help? Regarding The Gene Bomb:

"Average IQ level is decreasing, the author states, and individuals with low IQs tend to have larger families than those with higher IQs. This question has been addressed in the past, again by LS Penrose, who noted that individuals with IQs at the lowest end of the normal distribution tend to have low fertility; and that offspring of individuals with intelligence below the average tend to have IQs towards the centre of the normal distribution."

Hodgson SV. "The Gene Bomb: Does Higher Education and Advanced Technology Accelerate the Selection of Genes for Learning Disorders, Addictive and Disruptive Behaviors? By David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 1996". Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, Book reviews, 1997;39:208–209.

There's more here dealing with the alleged IQ decline: Wilkie T. "Book Reviews: The Gene Bomb". J Med Genet 1997;34:438–440 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not very helpful and I'd call it a case of intellectual dishonesty. While it is factual correct what it states, it omits important conclusions, like the fact that individuals with IQs at the highest end of the normal distribution tend to have the lowest fertility, and that overall fertility is negatively correlated with IQ. So the statement gives the illusion of criticism by using sneaky wordplay to the casual reader, but is in fact not a refutation at all. --Zero g (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Devlin et al. (1997) paper in Nature is somewhat relevant in showing the lack of consensus regarding dysgenesis in human populations. It's relevant for three reasons:

• It specifically states that Murray and Herrnstein's theory of intellectual dysgenesis in humans is based on the assumption of high a heritability for IQ (60% < h² < 80%): "Moreover, some of Herrnstein and Murray's conclusions regarding human evolution such as the development of cognitive castes and IQ dysgenics, arise from their belief that IQ heritability is at least 60%, and is probably closer to the 80% values obtained from adoption studies."
• It's relevant because it specifically states that the heritability of IQ is controversial: "IQ heritability, the portion of a population's IQ variability attributable to the effects of genes1, has been investigated for nearly a century, yet it remains controversial." So if the heritability of IQ is controversial, and dysgenics is based on heritabilty, then it cannot possibly be otherwise that dysgenics is controversial.
• It states that Murray and Herrnstein's evolutionary conclusions (of which dysgenesis is one) are "tenuous" and that the paper's heritability estimates are much lower than the usual estimates given, narrow sense heritability being 34%: "Our results suggest far smaller heritabilities: broad-sense heritability, which measures the total effect of genes on IQ, is perhaps 48%; narrow-sense heritability, the relevant quantity for evolutionary arguments because it measures the additive effects of genes, is about 34%. Herrnstein and Murray's evolutionary conclusions are tenuous in light of these heritabilities"

I don't see any reason why these observations cannot be included in the article, Nature's a top notch journal.

There's another Nature associated paper in the European Journal of Human Genetics (part of the Nature group?) the paper mentions dysgenics, and is from 2006, but it does not mention IQ or intelligence. It's about ART (assisted reproductive technologies). It is a single sentence that states: "Furthermore, it has been feared that ART might in fact lead to dysgenics, altering the gene pool of populations and expanding the need for infertility treatments."

The Science mention is about Shockley's request for National Academy of Sciences funding into dysgenics research. It does contain Shockley's own description of dysgenesis, which does not mention "intelligence": "For more than 4 years now, William Shockley, a Stanford physicist who shared a Nobel Prize for his part in inventing the transistor, has been carrying on a dogged campaign to have the National Academy of Sciences encourage research in "dysgenics." As he defines it, dysgenics has to do with the "retrogressive evolution" of a population through the reproduction, in disproportionately large numbers, of its genetically inferior elements."

That's about it for Nature and Science, there's a paper by Hamilton from 1983 that mentions dysgenics, but it's not available, it's called "Methods in March Hare Madness." No idea what it's about. The journal Heredity didn't even bother to review Lynn's Book on dysgenics.[11] Alun (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream science is leaning toward high heritability of IQ upon adulthood, so I don't see how a 60% estimate is fringe given all of the research was on adults. Identical twin studies have shown a heritability of IQ of 80%. --Zero g (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With publication in the journal Nature and over 1500 citations in the scientific literature according to Google Scholar, Devlin, B., Daniels, M., & Roeder, K. (1997) The heritability of IQ. Nature 1997;388:468-471, is about as mainstream as you can get. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence that "Mainstream science is leaning toward high heritability of IQ". For one thing the statement makes no sense, hertability is a measure of a population and not a measure of a trait, one cannot talk about the heritability of IQ, one can only talk about the heritability of IQ within the population that is being investigated.[12] [13] I don't think "mainstream science" does a great deal of research into IQ and heritability at all, from what is published about heritability there is a discussion regarding how much variation is attributable to gene x environment interactions.[14] Environmental vs gene effects on complex traits are totally unknown (genetic/environmental causation is not measurable, heritability does not measure the genetic effect on "intelligence" [15]), and their effects on the variation of a trait within a population are far more complex than the simplistic gene-environment dichotomy that is often postulated.[16] Heritability studies do not measure the effect of genes on a trait (such as intelligence) in an individual, but the effect of the contribution of genes to the variation of a trait within a population, this is not extrapolable to different populations.[17] A high heritability for "intelligence" (80%) for a sample derived from the "white" US population tells us nothing about the heritability of intelligence in a different population (for example the African-American population), indeed it very much depends on the composition of this sample, if this sample is environmentally homogeneous (and not necessarily representative of the population as a whole), then we would expect genes to contribute greatly to the variation. Heritability is a proportion, the less environment affects the variation, the more genes do and vice versa, or to put it another way, a heritability of 80% for a sample of "white" Americans may only be telling us that this sample is environmentally homogeneous (if they are all middle class, went to well funded good schools etc). From my perusal of the data, most research into heritability is involved with trying to partition environmental effects, genetic effects and environment/gene interactions. The problem with interaction between genes and environment, (gene environment correlation are often partitioned with genetic effects on variation), is the biggest bone of contention in heritability estimates. A great deal of this research is done with laboratory organisms because identifying environmental effects can only be done when a large range of different environments are considered and of course we can use strains that are genetically homogeneous. Twin studies are the most controversial of all studies, because they assume that the similarities between identical twins are all genetic, and assume that identical twins live in identical environments to their non-twin siblings, or can be compared to non-identical twins, i.e. that the differences in IQ correlations between non-identical twins and identical twins must be genetic. This assumption has been challenged.[18] Identical twins may share a great deal of their environment that is not shared by their non-twin siblings. It is likely that as sequencing of whole genomes becomes easier and cheaper, twin studies will be abandoned in favour of comparing inter-individual genetic differences based directly on estimates of gene sharing, in this way a more randomised sampling of different environments will be possible.[19] Alun (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it was a good source... eleven years ago. --Zero g (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, published the same year as Richard Lynn's book. Alun (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I corrected a misrepresention of a number of studies I found in the article. Essentially, the studies rather uncontroversially found that stupid people had more kids. Some then went on the estimate that this would lead to a decline in intelligent and labeled it dysgenics (valid logic, but more controversial). I noticed that the article text stated that the studies "reported" a decline in intelligent. This is factually wrong, the studies only reported a negative correlation between intelligence and fecundity. The reason I discuss this common sense point here is because user:zero g is edit warring to prevent this change. In the interests of further input from the community I bring it up here. Jefffire (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and have to agree. Do you think that "Several studies carried out between 1982 and 2004 have reported on the possibility of a dysgenic trend with respect to intelligence," correctly describes the studies? I'm trying to use the term "dysgenics" given the sources do, due to recent WP:SYN disputes. --Zero g (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Easier and more straightforward to say they have "claimed".--Ramdrake (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've observed that people pushing an opinion in personal writings often use 'claimed' for their opponents, and 'argued' for people who support their views. I think your usage of the word 'claimed' makes the article look amateurish and less neutral. --Zero g (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be strictly correct, if we say "claimed", then we are saying that they have made a simple statement, if we say "argued" then they must have made an argument in support of their claim of intellectual dysgenesis. So if the paper simply reports the low relative birth rate among people with a high IQ, and then simply states that this is evidence of dysgenesis, it's just a claim. If the paper expands upon this point and makes an argument for intellectual dysgenesis based on this datum (for example goes into some statistical analysis or mathematical formulation showing that dysgenesis is the "logical" outcome of this observation), then they have "argued". This is something of a pedantic distinction, but if we want to be accurate then we need to distinguish between a simple claim and a logical argument. Alun (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My preferred solution would be to say that the papers reported a negative correlation in IQ and fecundity and inferred a dysgenic effect which they estimated to be x. I gather that's not gaining any support, but I'd just like to throw it out there again. Jefffire (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for that.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Alun (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was put up for deletion, feel free to comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. --Zero g (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just randomly found this article. This is something I thought about a lot, I'd like to see this article expanded. I noticed the article talks a lot about the potential degeneration of IQ. What about other forms of degeneration, like disease, allergies, physical deformations, etc.? AzureFury (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is very little, if anything documented in humans that way. There are several mutations documented in various mouse strains and fruit flies.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? We know that many diseases are hereditary. That seems like proof to me. AzureFury (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review Hardy–Weinberg principle. Genetic equilibrium is a basic principle of population genetics. Allele frequencies do not change spontaneously. Also, Wikipedia content must have reliable sources and not be based on original research. Because human generation interval is long, ethical considerations, etc., little research on this topic specific to humans exists. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the increase in things like allergies are unlikely to be due to so called "dysgenesis" because they are almost certainly environmental in origin, caused by increased pollution or not allowing children to strengthen their immune systems during development by not letting them play in mud, for example. They suspect that our growing separation from dirt and germs is behind the rapid rise in asthma in the US, Western Europe, Japan and Australia, and may be triggering other allergic diseases, too. Our hygiene fetish could even be pushing up the incidence of more serious autoimmune diseases such as diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. from "Let them eat dirt" by Garry Hamilton in the New scientist July 1998. Alun (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeez Walter, I didn't say we should add anything new. I've never claimed to be an expert in the field, it's just something I thought might exist. That was a legitimate quesiton, so you don't need to go throwing policies in my face.

We don't let our kids play in the mud for a reason, it's unhealthy... AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury, you must understand that this article was recently under dispute, where a couple of POV-pushing editors were insisting on putting irrelevant (WP:SYNTH) and fringe material in this article as if it were mainstream science, so everybody's nerves may be a bit frayed now. Please understand that no hostility was meant towards you.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, I know how that goes. Anyway, I'm not really convinced that dysgenics aren't active in some way. The article even says, "genotypic IQ may fall even while phenotypic IQ rises throughout the population due to environmental effects..." But if as you say there's no hard evidence for its existence, then I won't press the point. It was just a thought. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury, I apologize if I seemed unwelcoming. I thought from your comment that you might not be familiar with the guidelines/policies that I cited. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the EvolWikiProject tag because the article topic does not appear in the literature of evolutionary biology to any significant extent.[20] Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The EvolWikiProject tag was added by Nagelfar (talk · contribs) on 2007 April 11.[21] A somewhat related article, mixed gonadal dysgenesis is tagged {{WPMED}}. I suppose that it is mainly the decision of Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology, but I don't recall any contributions to the article or its talk page from the members of that project. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The EvolWikiProject tag was restored by EgraS (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "POV edit". It isn't clear whether s/he is describing his/her edit or my edit. Also, s/he blanked my comments.[22] That is inconsistent with my reading of WP:TALK and I have restored them. I note that neither EgraS nor I are self-identified as participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there isn't some way to make the first sentence less nonsensical. I realize the article is about a concept with unsolvable conceptual inconsistencies, but it seems like there ought to be a way to just describe it without engaging in the error.

Specifically, the sentence now reads: "Dysgenics (and cacogenics) describes a system of breeding wherein selection is for deleterious traits." Obviously, selection is by definition for advantageous traits. We can only get the "deleterious" by assuming some external ethical value outside of selective advantage. I suppose conceivably some trait would have local advantage, but cause harm to species survival (e.g. the Oxygen Catastrophe or perhaps human intelligence leading to killing ourselves off as a species through nuclear war, environmental destruction, or whatever).

You or I might personally like puppy dogs to be cuter, flowers to smell more sweetly, or even people around us to be smarter. However, whether those traits are actually advantageous or deleterious only depends on the ecological niche of the organisms having them.... ugly puppies, bad-smelling flowers, and stupid people could very well be more successful in particular environments (in which ugly, foul, and unintelligent are non-deleterious). LotLE×talk 18:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In animals, dysgenics studies involve deliberately crossing individuals bearing deleterious genetic traits. While natural selection is obviously always for advantageous traits, artificial selection isn't necessarily so: we can select any trait we want. However, in humans "advantageous" and "deleterious" are most often based on value judgments. But I believe the missing word in the introduction is "artificial".:) --Ramdrake (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That one word is indeed a huge improvement! I guess I would also like to see another clause or adjective that had something like "...traits that are deleterious or perceived as ethically undesirable". IQ is often the highlighted trait in humans, with the value-judgment implicit that "smarter is better", but sometimes one sees things about humans supposedly becoming more selfish, violent, etc. Not that I actually buy that such changes are happening in human gene frequency, but if it were that would be bad from an ethical POV, not from a "fitness" POV. LotLE×talk 19:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy, do I wish there was an easy solution for that one too! "Dysgenics" in humans is the brainchild of a few, fringe scientist (chief among them Richard Lynn). In humans, it is often considered the realm of speculative, even fringe science, for primarily the reasons you outlined above. But hey, if you have suggestions, I know I'm willing to listen. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the lead a little to try to better reflect these concerns. Frankly, I'd like to describe Lynn and company as "fringe" or "pseudo-science" (which is more accurate), but I think WP:NPOV only lets me use "a small number of scientists." LotLE×talk 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lynn is a eugenicist, and the entire field of eugenics can be considered fringe (couple of references on this: [23] and [24] though I warn you - they're hefty!!), and the whole field of human dysgenics is closely linked to eugenics, so from that angle, I'd say it should work.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument for dysgenysis in humans is basically that our modern environment is "artificial" because it promotes the reproduction of "unsuccessful" people by not allowing them to "fail". So I suppose they would argue that this is a form of artificial selection. Of course this does not tell us what a form of "natural" selection actually is for humans. I suppose that in it's extreme they should be arguing that we all go back and live in caves, hunt for our own food and generally live a primitivist lifestyle, that would sort the "fit" from the "unfit". I wonder how long these seventy something psychologists would last attempting to bring down big game with a stone flint? The argument that the modern world is disadvantageous to health is probably better illustrated by the overuse of antibiotics, leading to a rise in MRSA or the rise in asthma due to polution, than any of the extremely unsound data routinely cherry picked by this group of fringe nutcases. Alun (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some research about ongoing effects of assisted reproduction (eg Nature 422, 656-658 (17 April 2003)). For example, are children of assisted reproduction more likely to require assistance to reproduce than children of non-assisted reproduction? This could help clarify the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.92.139 (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The source you cite does not appear to mention the topic of this article.[25] It is Wikipedia policy to not include original research. It may be more relevant to Reproductive technology. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The definition of dysgenics given in the first sentence of the article introduction is, "Dysgenics (and cacogenics) describes a system of breeding wherein artificial selection is for traits that are deleterious or perceived as ethically undesirable." This is different than any of the definitions given in these sources [26] and is therefore probably not the mainstream definition of the word. --Hogg wild (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is very similar. The degeneration is studied in animals through deliberate breeding (artificial selection) for deleterious traits. Hope this helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable to begin the article with a mainstream definition of the word dysgenics and then describe how it is studied afterwards. :D --Hogg wild (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What would you consider a "mainstream definition of dysgenics"?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you. What would you consider to be a mainstream definition dysgenics? --Hogg wild (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up the phrase, and you're the one making claims about it. We can't have a discussion unless the terms are defined, and since this is your term it would be nice of you to define it (and then back up your claim with a ref). NJGW (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked Ramdrake a question. I didn't do anything wrong. I've already provided a link to a number of sources. Read them. --Hogg wild (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said you did anything wrong, but Ramdrake asked you a question... You are making an incomplete suggestion, saying we should change the lead without saying what we should change it to. NJGW (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I consider the current definition given in the article to be adequate and comprehensive. Now, it would be useful to know what Hogg wild has in mind. The objection that the current definition "isn't mainstream" is awfully vague.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with. The current definition is based on the Dictionary of Cell and Molecular Biology. That source is used primarily by scientists and not the general population. That definition is very specific. A more general definition would be a much better choice since Wikipedia is not written for molecular biologists. --Hogg wild (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually, the more specific the definition the better, no? It takes away the vagueness in the definition of "degeneration" (what is degeneration in living beings?)--Ramdrake (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No. ;) --Hogg wild (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, make a useful suggestion. Otherwise, what you're doing now is hardly different from trolling; that and the fact that your contribution history reads like that of a SPA.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I said that I would see what I can come up with. Please stop the personal attacks. I would prefer that you not reply to anymore of my posts. --Hogg wild (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I say be bold and make the changes you think appropriate. If other editors dissent, they can revert. If yet other editors agree, they can revert back.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In its current state, I think this article has a long way to go to reach GA status. Dysgenics is a term with a variety of related uses historically. The first sentence does a good job explaining what the topic is as distinct from (human) eugenics, referring specifically to artificial selection for deleterious or undesirable traits. However, the main body of the article makes no mention of artificial selection, and is essentially a disjointed series of examples from the history of eugenics in which people identified conditions in human society they saw as dysgenic, without properly contextualizing any of these within the history of eugenics or social history more broadly. In terms of that history, it barely scratches the surface. The lead makes a case for why this is a distinct topic from euguenics; based on the body, I see little reason why this would not be better off integrated in the main eugenics article. It seems that the real topic of this article is debates over dysgenics and IQ, which might make a more appropriate title: Dysgenics and IQ or Dysgenics and intelligence. If the scope were limited to that, an argument could be made for this article being comprehensive enough to meet the GA criteria, but even then I suspect it's a little on the thin side. Images would be a good addition, e.g., a recreation of one of the graphs used in one of the historical arguments described in the text, or one of the iconic WWI images to emphasize the impersonality and indiscriminate nature of the descruction.--ragesoss (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging this article with Eugenics has been proposed several times but has not succeeded. Fertility and Intelligence exists; most of that literature makes no mention of dysgenics. Much of the recent literature on dysgenics as applied to humans is cited in the article and consists largely of publications by Richard Lynn, a psychologist, and his collaborators. That article covers his work on Dysgenics and IQ in some detail. The article on William Shockley covers his advocacy of that topic. I think that adding the article that you suggest would be largely redundant and would lack the context that those articles provide. The talk page of Verwoerd, the nominator, contains a number of warnings against edit warring and pov pushing. That, together with a lack of subsequent edits, may suggest that his GA nom of this article was not to be taken seriously. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. This probably is a topic that needs its own article, but a good article on dysgenics needs to engage pretty heavily with the closely related historical and philosophical literature on eugenics (without the context of which, the isolated examples of Jordan, Lynn and Shockley don't make much sense, since they were far from the only people concerned with dysgenics). Dysgenics was an important part of the wide-ranging public debate over nuclear weapons and fallout in the 1950 and 1960s, for instance. The current version of the this article deals with only a small portion of the topic.--ragesoss (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite my comments above, I would support merging the content of this article with Eugenics. Prior attempts were largely opposed by those advocating for the views of Richard Lynn and his collaborators. With those efforts in abeyance, a fresh merge proposal may succeed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If the merge proposal failed again, how would you propose improving the current article? How can both the notable historic concept that originated 1910-1915 be discussed in sufficient detail alongside more recent scientific genetic studies of animals such as the mouse and fruit fly? --Hogg wild (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with this quote,

Robert Klark Graham during 1998 argued that genocide and class warfare, in cases ranging from the French Revolution to the present, have had a dysgenic effect through the killing of the more intelligent by the less intelligent, and "might well incline humanity toward a more primitive, more brutish level of evolutionary achievement."

He died in 1997! Genjix (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"During 1965, Colum Gillfallen speculated in The Mankind Quarterly that lead used by Romans for plumbing and cooking utensils poisoned the water and food of the Roman elite, causing the decline of the Roman Empire.[10] Gillfallen's theory was refuted during 1985 by Needleman and Needleman, who showed that measurements of lead from bones of Romans and other peoples did not provide any evidence that the fertility of the Roman elite was adversely affected.[11]"

It is not obvious to a reader why the above paragraph from the article is dysgenics. More wording needs to be added to indicate why this belongs in the article or it should be removed. The fact that there was scientific evidence that the hypothesis was false makes the case for its removal stronger. --Millstoner (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it is in the history section, it is appropriate to include refuted applications of the term. I have expanded the content to address your concerns. Please note that it is not an ad hominem argument to reference the circumstances of Shockley and Lynn that "reduce[s] the evidentiary weight of the claims".[27] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making some changes to the lead poisoning theory but it still does not appear to meet the definition of dysgenics. You could argue that it is dysgenic but that would be original research. Could you please move this information to Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Role_of_lead_poisoning or allow me to do so? --Millstoner (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I clarified the connection and removed the OR tag. Also, I restored the cited content on the role of the Pioneer Society in the history of the research and advocacy of this topic. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wsiegmund, the article introduction states:

1. Dysgenics is the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species.

2. Processes tending to promote the survival of or reproduction by the weak or diseased, especially at the expense of the strong or healthy, could be described as being dysgenic.

The information you have added to the article on possible lead poisoning in the Roman Empire appears to be about a fertility issue but that issue is still not explained properly. If it was explained properly, it does not seem that it will meet the definition of dysgenics in statement #1 above. With regards to statement #2, since the references to not mention dysgenics, you would have to make a personal judgment call that the the Roman aristocracy was "strong or healthy" and everyone else was "weak or diseased". Strength in this context refers to personal strength and not political strength for example. Such a personal judgment call by yourself is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. --Millstoner (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The presence of "dysgenic" in the title of the cited work by Gillfallen is evidence of its relevance to the history of the term. You appear not to have read the Gillfallen paper, or its title, if you think that he doesn't mention dysgenics. If you think that Gillfallen's work can be described better, that is presumably why you are here. If you have a source or sources that indicate that Gillfallen misused the term in his paper, you may add that to the content. Otherwise, it would be OR to assert misuse. We have few citations for the usage of "dysgenics" in the 1960s, so it is a notable occurrence. Removal of this paragraph may violate WP:UNDUE by giving excessive weight to authors such as Lynn and Shockley. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the term now in the title of ref 10. I must have been looking at ref 11. The fertility issue needs to be explained. Apparently the theory was that lead poisoning affected fertility. --Millstoner (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

...who showed that measurements of lead from bones of Romans and other peoples did not provide any evidence that the fertility of the Roman elite was adversely affected.

What the heck? Why on earth would you assume that fertility rate would be the cause of Roman decline, especially when lead is known to cause other major problems likely including autism. I see no relationship whatsoever between the ideas that lead was a cause of Roman empire decline and fertility drop was a cause of Roman empire decline. We should probably avoid including things that make no sense regardless of topicality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.113.131 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Another list of sources of relevance to this article is the bibliography of Genetics and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Flynn effect subsection of the article is misleading. It cites an article by Steve Connor that was published a week before Richard Lynn's book was released, so it is likely that its critics were criticizing it based on a basic summary of the books contents. They criticize Lynn for ignoring the Flynn effect, when anyone who has read it would know full well that he had devoted a whole chapter to the issue. In Chapter 8: Resolving the Paradox of the Secular Rise of Intelligence, Lynn points out that the rapid secular rise in phenotypic intelligence brought on by environmental improvements would mask the much slower decline in genotypic intelligence, but that we cannot count on environmental improvements forever increasing phenotypic intelligence, as there will likely be diminishing returns.

Lynn's critics should really know better. Anyone who had actually read his previous work would've known he was aware of the secular rise in intelligence, because he himself had previously published research documenting it. Hell, anyone who has read James Flynn's work would know that Lynn is aware of the rise in intelligence, as Flynn cited Lynn's work on it in his book Asian Americans: achievement beyond IQ and in his published work in peer-reviewed journals such as Massive IQ Gains in 14 Nations: What IQ Tests Really Measure from Psychological Bulletin. These people are citing the Flynn effect to criticize Lynn, but it looks like they haven't even read James Flynn's work.--B.B. (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers routinely received prepublication copies of books so that their review is published about the same time as the book. Please review WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate for a particular point of view. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Steve Jones was either being ignorant or dishonest when he characterized Richard Lynn's Dysgenics as ignoring the secular rise in intelligence. I was giving Jones the benefit of the doubt by assuming he was ignorant, instead of a liar. Either way, this article is highly misleading to imply that Lynn ignored the Flynn Effect in his book. Should Wikipedia print blatant falsehoods in order to give the impression of fairness and impartiality?--B.B. (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

TheWilliamson is making a large scale revert to a very old version: [28]. This is inappropriate. The material he is now reverting is now present in the Fertility and intelligence article. It is better to have the IQ material in one place instead of being scattered over two different articles. Also, the IQ material is now very poorly and incompletely presented in this article.Miradre (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I only did the revert because the article has been drastically reduced in size, with progressively increasing deletion of data, capped by a massive removal of material on the 29th without discussion. The reason given was that the material was already in another article, however the topics of dysgenics and IQ and Intelligence overlap. TheWilliamson (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All the changes are explained in the edit summaries. Certainly, IQ and dysgenics overlap, but having the same material in two different article is confusing. It is better to have it in the same place. The IQ material is now one article, better organized, and with many more studies added. The IQ material in this article is now poorly organized and incomplete.Miradre (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost the entire article/discussion on this theoretical biological phenomenon is restricted to humans,(and then limited almost entirely to discussion of intelligence...the genetic, epigenetic, heritable, and environmental bases of which is not well understood). Someone with knowledge in the field of genetics should provide clear explanation of any current scientific theory as related to other creatures.

A comparison of dysgenics and vestigialism might be called for to describe any differences and similarities, since they may seem at least superficially related.

Jgreeter (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Dysgenesis be merged into Dysgenics. What do editors here think? If there is a clear consensus, we'll accomplish the merge, and turn Dysgenesis back into a redirect. If consensus cannot be obtained, we can submit Dysgenesis for AfD, but hopefully that won't be necessary. Please offer opinions below, one per line, as Support or Oppose, along with your reasoning. Thanks, Elonka 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support Etymologically, the two words are related. Dysgenesis is used more in connexion with faulty organogenesis, whereas dysgenics and dysgenic are used both for faulty organogenesis and the expression of deleterious genes, more commonly those causing faulty organogenesis (gonadal, muscular, nervous or otherwise) but also others.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no indication in dictionaries or secondary sources that Dysgenics and Dysgenesis are synonyms. Research about Dysgenics doesn't cross reference research relating to Dysgenesis, and visa versa. I don't see the point of merging two terms with different names into the same article, other than to be disruptive by steering an article off topic. --Zero g (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment': please assume good faith.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Dysgenesis is an obvious fork created by lifting one sentence from this article. It seems content free and does not acknowledge the adjectival use of dysgenic, the most common use in mainstream scientific literature. User:Zero g's "article" replaces a former medical disambiguation page. Mathsci (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose They are clearly different terms with different meanings. EgraS (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Dysgenesis should be a disambig page, with links to this article, the gonadal dysgenesis article and the article on hybrid dysgenesis (and possibly some other articles, such as eugenics). This article should have a section about hybrid dysgenesis that points to the longer article on subject. Human intellectual dysgenesis should be a relatively small section because it is closely linked to the eugenics article and it's fringe science, it's also simple to summarise, we don't need detail on each and ever paper ever published, we just need to use these papers to support the contention that some researchers think there's evidence for it. We need to say that these scientists base their ideas on heritability and not heredity and that heritability has many critics and is not about genetic contribution to intelligence, but an estimate of the proportion of genetic contribution to variation within a specific population (so it can change in different populations because different populations have different environments), and even this has been strongly contested due to gene-environment interactions and correlations (see Layzer 1974 "Heritability Analysis of IQ scores: Science or Numerology?" Science 183: 1259-66 BTW Science has an impact factor of 21.9 and is 14th in a list of all science publications.[29] and many other publications). What we also need to do is include a section in the heritability article on criticisms and misuse of the concept, and likewise do the same in the article on Heritability of IQ. I think that covers most of the bases. Alun (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Alun, in your comments, you appear to support the merge proposal. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. You're right, I'm tired, can't sleep tonight. Sorry. Alun (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support The arguments for merging are well-stated by Ramdrake, Mathsci, and Alun, in my opinion. I would add that some of the discussion in the Dysgenics (people) AfD (May 2008) is relevant to this one. The result of that RfD was delete. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I have significant post-secondary education in biology (though admittedly not much in the area of cellular/genetics/developmental). Upon some cursory reading, it seems they are simply not the same thing. Dysgenics is a more broad term that applies to the accumulation of any unfavorable genetic abnormalities in a given population over some time scale, whereas dysgenesis is restricted to maladaptive ontogeny (and de facto restricted further to embryological organ development). I'm not well-versed in the field so please correct me if I'm factually inaccurate.Jgreeter (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Provided secondary source to this assertion, "The Flynn effect has increased IQ scores as much as 15 points throughout the First World, but some researchers have argued that this trend may now be reversing." See article. #37. I don't know how to remove the "non-primary source" flag. Sempre30 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed some of the wording in the "Flynn Effect" section to reflect the documented reversal, and added another source.Sempre30 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could clean up some of the sources at the end of the Flynn Effect section??? It seems a little redundant to list no less than 5 sources, and since Wikipedia puts a premium on secondary sources, I think we should just include the sliding British teen IQ source and the Teasdale & Owen Flynn effect in reverse Danish study. Just a suggestion. Sempre30 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Added a visual and commentary to the Biological Studies section. If anyone wants to add a better picture from the public domain, please feel free to do so........didn't have a lot of time to search out a pic.... Sempre30 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Added a new section to the Dysgenic theories, primarily sourced from Robert Hare's Without Conscience. I think this is about the last thing I have to add to the dysgenics page. Unless some new information emerges, after this, it will just be grammar corrections. Sempre30 (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Had to re-add this line after the administration edit, "Hare describes the implications as chilling." The reason why this is important is that Hare views the population rise of psychopathy as "dysgenic".......he doesn't view it as a positive trend. Sempre30 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Note to Mr. Ramdrake - thanks for making the proper context edits to my contributions, but please also be aware of flow disruption to the paragraph. Much obliged if the editors can take steps to keep the continuity of the work, even if one doesn't particulary agree; it is the polite thing to do. Warm Regards. Sempre30 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a great source, Counteraction. I'm suprised a main-stream medical textbook would be so candid, but it does show how the dysgenic subject is becoming unavoidable in some circles. Fixed the citation format, btw....Sempre30 (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)