You mean your sources that don’t remove the effects of environmental factors? I think you need to keep repeating yourself because it reinforces your position to everyone. You have some really insightful points! You alone are proof of the supremacy of the white race and account for the complete absence of black scientists and philosophers!
Stop moving the goalpost. It was about the results, of course it were environmental factors that shaped those differences, thats exactly why people from similar environments share similar genetic traits. How is this so difficult to comprehend for you when you are even the one trying to use this talking point yourself? It just hurts at this point.Originally Posted by sbbds
Yes people from an European environment are more related to other people from this environment because the environment shaped them this way.
Before you want to save your poor African babies from facing the harsh reality of being inferior in achievement and performance, these environments shaped them for millions an thousands of years, by natural selection. So no, there is no hope for this to be overcome, and why the fuck should one wish for this.
No, my point is that they don’t. Not much that are meaningful or beyond literally skin deep with environmental factors removed. Actually some sources that you posted yourself proved that, like when black adopted kids were raised in white environments, they experienced improved success.
No they aren’t, and your article didn’t state that either lol.Yes people from an European environment are more related to other people from this environment because the environment shaped them this way.
Sharing a common ancestor or a couple race markers doesn’t create more overall genetic closeness when accounting for a human’s entire genetic makeup.
ErmBefore you want to save your poor African babies from facing the harsh reality of being inferior in achievement and performance, these environments shaped them for millions an thousands of years, by natural selection. So no, there is no hope for this to be overcome, and why the fuck should one wish for this.
I have listed so many sources that tell us that this is not the case. They improved a little, were still far more close to their family of origin.
Stop just spewing lies because they fit into your worldview, it has been disproven so many times. I am tired of this shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnes...Adoption_Study
Yes they are, if you are not capable of generating individual thought out of this article you maybe should not try to debate about things that are that fundamental to our survival.No they aren’t, and your article didn’t state that either lol.
Yes, why should one do anything for any reason at all, let's just do what we have been told. There does not need to be a ethical basis for systems of morality, just do what everyone does. <- This is your level of thinking and i am tired of discussing with you, you will stay ignorant, here natural selection fails, because you will still have a country to go home to after having helped to destroy our civilization by being a propaganda sock puppet for evil people, i won't have this luxury.Erm
... Yeah this is the one that you linked that disproves YOUR OWN argument, and here you are linking it again LOL:
”The study found that "(a) putative genetic racial differences do not account for a major portion of the IQ performance difference between racial groups, and (b) black and interracial children reared in the culture of the tests and the schools perform as well as other adopted children in similar families."[4]”
At this point I think you have actual mental disabilities that you should see a counselor or something for probably.
Err... fundamental to our survival? Lol? No they aren’t in the article. If they were you can quote it though!Yes they are, if you are not capable of generating individual thought out of this article you maybe should not try to debate about things that are that fundamental to our survival.
I teach biology and genetics...Yes, why should one do anything for any reason at all, let's just do what we have been told. There does not need to be a ethical basis for systems of morality, just do what everyone does. <- This is your level of thinking and i am tired of discussing with you, you will stay ignorant, here natural selection fails, because you will still have a country to go home to after having helped to destroy our civilization by being a propaganda sock puppet for evil people, i won't have this luxury.
At least I am capable of comprehending the words that I post and link to lmao. You can’t say the same for yourself.
So another intellectual dishonest ideologue has edited the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article and you poor mid-wit immediately fall for it?
It is just sad and only proves my point that there is no reason to take you intelectually serious.
Here are the different interpretations out of the Wikipedia site:
For me it proves my point, for you it does not prove your point beause you are clearly not thinking for yourself but giving value to the line that is written most on top on wikipedia.Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding of the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions.
Both Levin[8] and Lynn [9] argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.
Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr [10] responded to Levin [8] and Lynn.[9] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[10]
In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions [...]."[11] Later opinions supported Scarr's reassessment. For example, one group of authors wrote, "Generally, scholars in the field of intelligence see the evidence from this study . . . as consistent with both environmental and genetic hypotheses for the cause of Group IQ score differences . . ."[12]
Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: "[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one."[7]
The paper from Drew Thomas (2016), which reanalyze these adoptions studies found that once corrected for attrition in the low IQ white adoptees, once corrected for the Flynn effect since none of the Asian adoptee studies had a white control sample, mixed and white adoptees score the same, black adoptees score a little lower with a gap of 2.5pt, which can be explained by their pre-adoption characteristics.[13]
This does not work, you should not try to earn your good boy points this way, it hurts people for you to act like you had a clue, you don't have it, go on teaching the state doctrine but please do not act like you had an opinon, it is not yours, nothing of this is is a product of your own cognitive process, at least not in an academic sense, if it was it would be sad, but not that uncommon, please just stop overestimating yourself, it causes harm.
You are the one who linked this Wikipedia site lmao. You are complaining about and calling me intellectually dishonest for your own Wikipedia page that YOU linked
Here are the different interpretations out of the Wikipedia site:Actually, this potentially disproves your point EVEN MORE. You did it again, genius.Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding of the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions.
Both Levin[8] and Lynn [9] argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.
Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr [10] responded to Levin [8] and Lynn.[9] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[10]
In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions [...]."[11] Later opinions supported Scarr's reassessment. For example, one group of authors wrote, "Generally, scholars in the field of intelligence see the evidence from this study . . . as consistent with both environmental and genetic hypotheses for the cause of Group IQ score differences . . ."[12]
Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: "[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one."[7]
The paper from Drew Thomas (2016), which reanalyze these adoptions studies found that once corrected for attrition in the low IQ white adoptees, once corrected for the Flynn effect since none of the Asian adoptee studies had a white control sample, mixed and white adoptees score the same, black adoptees score a little lower with a gap of 2.5pt, which can be explained by their pre-adoption characteristics.[13]
Apparently lol, “for you”, because you are borderline retarded and can’t read or choose argument material correctly.For me it proves my point,
blah blah blah lmaofor you it does not prove your point beause you are clearly not thinking for yourself but giving value to the line that is written most on top on wikipedia.
This does not work, you should not try to earn your good boy points this way, it hurts people for you to act like you had a clue, you don't have it, go on teaching the state doctrine but please do not act like you had an opinon, it is not yours, nothing of this is is a product of your own cognitive process, at least not in an academic sense, if it was it would be sad, but not that uncommon, please just stop overestimating yourself it causes harm.
Maybe you wouldn’t feel that way if you weren’t just plain wrong.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote