Blacks who were adopted by whites score higher than the white average, especially when adopted early

>blacks who were adopted by whites score higher than the white average, especially when adopted early

But I thought blacks are intellectually inferior to whites?

(From "IQ Test Performance of Black Children
Adopted by White Families")

Other urls found in this thread:

kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf
web.archive.org/web/20150209011833/https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Scarr
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Weinberg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Results
twitter.com/AnonBabble

nice source faggot
sa ge

This is great. We can actually solve the black problem in 1 generation

But I gave you a source bud.

Where's your counter source? Or is it the case that perhaps there's more to the blacks v whites iq difference than genetics?

>whites who were adopted scored higher than adopted blacks
>by your logic both whites and blacks are as smart as asians
>all of these implying that your shitty sourceless chart is in any way true

nice tactic shill, but you will always lose in the end.

I literally said the chart is from the article "IQ Test Performance of Black Children
Adopted by White Families" in my original post.

My point here is that this notion that it is accurate to say that the gap in averages is not due solely to genetics, as we see that when you put blacks into white families they can perform almost a standard deviation above whites. This directly contradicts the narrative of those who argue that blacks are inherently intellectually inferior. Can you not respond honestly to honest data? Sources are all cited here.

>tactic

My tactics being science and cited studies. Yours being drawings of jews. You're making it appear that your party is the party of muh fee fees.

this is a shitty box with limited data. where's the bell curve distribution? i still see the lower white limit being higher than the lower black limit on early adoptions, for instance. Shitty bait

It pretty clearly states that the mean is 110 for early adopted blacks, 116 for early adopted whites, etc.

Also in the all adopted range the lower bounds for whites is lower than the lower bounds for blacks.

Again the source was very clearly given, and appears to be freely accessible via a google search.

your data shows that adopted blacks have a lower mean IQ by 5.2 points and that early-adopted blacks have a lower mean IQ by 6.4 points, which is even worse.

It's well known that adopted kids have higher IQ.

It's also well known that whites have a higher standard deviation in IQ scores, resulting in more in both the top and bottom range (while niggers tend to be uniformly retarded).

>sample size 9 - 130
>whites still have higher median score
>no source
Are you high?

n is the number from each group tested, not the average IQ.

You just failed an IQ test, sorry. Didn't think it was possible, but you managed.

People who adopt are wealthier than the average parents, you stupid kike.

>Black and interracial
Halfblacks don't count faggot.

Why does everyone keep saying no source when it literally says "(From "IQ Test Performance of Black Children
Adopted by White Families")"?

So money is more important than genetics? If blacks weren't so poor they'd be more intelligent on average than whites?

...What do you think "M" means buddy?

Well it would appear that their uniform poor performance may be attributable largely to environment, as this study shows.

"One drop" supremacists would VERY MUCH disagree.

trashy parents arent adopting most of the time
the people who are adopting are doing it because they want to raise a kid not because they were too cheap for a condom and are more likely to make the child succeed its not a nature vs nuture thing its a nature and nuture

>96.8

Thinking about this some, it makes sense that adopted kids would perform better. Anyone can squirt out some kids, but adopting means really being prepared for them. It's not like picking up a cat from the shelter.

>The 29 children with two black parents achieved a mean IQ score of 96.8.
Shame someone actually checked your source huh?

Hmmm it's almost like the correlation is between your parents wanting you and IQ. And when parents want you they usually give you a loving environment to grow up in.

This.

What the fuck are you smoking, OP? (Besides dick)

mfw reading the mental gymnastics in this thread

It's even worse. The full blacks had a mean IQ 14.7 points lower than the mean white score.

Also, biological children of those who also adopted still scored higher on IQ tests.

>blacks can be productive, actice, civilized, and maybe inventive members of society
>blacks are still not necessarily smarter on average

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 [...]."[8]

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."[9]

>Why does everyone keep saying no source
Who did the study? What do think source means, brainlet? Why is the sample size so small?

Explainable by time before adoption. B/B had an average of 33 months whereas B/W had an average of 9.

Kek not even adoptive parents want to take niggers.

There is a small boost blacks get from white parents while they are young but they settle at the national average for blacks in the end. They run into that genetic brick wall.

That's still interesting considering the Black American IQ avg is 85 and the mutt average is 94ish.

Or perhaps they adopt black culture as they become more independent and black culture has a negative affect on intelligence.

So this pretty clearly shows the mean is lower for blacks than whites in both groups, doesn't it? Even the all-adopted for whites is higher than the early adopt for blacks.

Maybe, but that's not terribly far off their IQ at age 17. It's like they converge back.

they don't, Scarr himself said they were no different than the black average of that area

blacks develop faster so they have higher apparent IQ scores early on

So this proves that earlier adopted children are smarter than those who weren't? Bullox

IQ is most malleable in younger children, but tends to move towards genetic averages by around age 18.

This is because of different parenting styles, some put an enormous importance on teaching their children to read as young as possible, while others do not. This will naturally effect their children's scores at a young age but these differences will not necessarily by seen to carry over by the time they are adults.

If I had to guess, the table posted by OP without a source likely illustrates the results for children.

How? Genocide?

Yes, this is a know phenomenon. At puberty they begin the decline back to normal for their demographic.

*sample group of 3 and they still chose to publish it


Really makes me think.

Any excuse to deny a genetic factor, right? There is no evidence at all to support that claim.

Sample size isnt big enough for a scientific breakthrough. Also the author of your source is a liberal hillary supporter. Sage

I would imagine a possible explanation is that in early childhood the adoptive parents help them with school and shit, and them being on average a lot smarter than the average black parent this helps, but then by highschool the parents can't/don't help as much so they fall behind.

>Its almost like making niggers use their brains encourage synapse connections

Are you retarded? The DID NOT post results for the "Early adopted Asian/Indian" children. That is the only group that they only had 3 cases for.

Well done

...

Sample size to small retard. Go back to /r/anarchism and try again

wtf are you even saying

That report suggests the exact opposite, as Whites scored 111.5 in mean IQ versus 106.3 for blacks in the first category (all adopted), and 116.8 for whites versus 110.4 for blacks in the second category (early adopted)

You can't even understand that this is in favor of the argument of blacks being dumber than whites.

>possible
In other words not supported by the evidence, got ya. Either way, I know from going to school with blacks that they are retarded as fuck. It's almost useless to have them in school and I think we should segregate according to IQ.

Because the problem is cultural and economic but neither Sup Forums nor SJWs will ever admit that.

lol wat

see:

you are delusional

>implying blacks have an IQ of 130, and whites have an IQ of 25
Nice (((source))) m8

>Black and interracial

>White

>Asian/Indian

So let me get this straight. The study mixes blacks and interracials (so black+white and all the others are added to this pool). Increasing the IQ considerably from pure black populations based on all prior IQ testing history.

White's are totally on their own.

Asians are mixed in with presumably Indians from India. (drastically lowering the IQ as is evidenced)

Does no one else see how retarded and useless this study is? They purposely polluted their groupings just to make niggers look smarter and asians to look dumber.

The only possibly useful data here is that mixed children have the same IQ range as white europeans. Assuming it doesn't also include (((White hispanics))) without saying so as white europeans.

Of course, no link. Which instantly makes OP a massive fagboy.

kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf

Here is the link.

What a useless thread.

I will state it again because you are slow. The only group that they had so few cases far was LEFT OUT OF THE RESULTS! Why quote the "3 cases" bullshit when it had no effect on the results?

>tfw the only example you can find to try and prove your point still has whites ahead.
Guess you're gonna have to revert back to the "whitey be keepin us down" argument.

Did that retard actually think the n row meant IQ?

What a fucking mongeloid. Even if you didn't know what n meant, at least you could guess that a fuckign human didn't have an average IQ of 9, as said in the early adopted white category.

>Why does everyone keep saying no source when it literally says "(From "IQ Test Performance of Black Children
Adopted by White Families")"?

Ok, you must be a retarded nigger.

Isn't 166.8 still higher than 110.4

Isn't 111.5 still higher than 106.3

Not seeing what you're trying to prove here

Wrong. Blacks raised by white parents still average several IQ points lower than whites. Not that it matters, because it wouldn't compensate for blacks being dumb niggers in the first place.

Sample size is to small regardless. Sage and fuck off

Only 130 blacks tested but 25 whites?
>THE MEDIAN STILL SHOWS WHITE IQ HIGHER

Just research the issue a bit more and you will find a genetic component, dummy. Blacks literally have smaller brains. Brain size in humans matches perfectly with measured IQ differences.

116.8*

And I'm genuinely curious about what this is supposed to demonstrate

OP is probably black

minnesota transracial study

There's always pic related.

Also, anyone who needs some comprehensive info on race and IQ stuff follow this link:
web.archive.org/web/20150209011833/https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/

It should have just about everything you need and is impeccably sourced.

I mean, how would you explain the regression as they age then?

25 is the sample number faggot.

This is his source.
kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf

From Sandra Scarr, and Richard (((Weinberg))).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Scarr

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Weinberg

so you can't read what you posted?

>MPC
What are you doing here?

>blacks and interracial
White/Asian mix is interracial
>b...b...but muh narrative.

Poorly defined terms are the building blocks of all liberal arguments.

It's like how the 1 in 4 women argument contains cat calling and "unwanted looks" as abuse.

Fugg forgot pic.

wikipedia article on it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Results

The funny thing is how stupid this study is. People always drive conclusion out of study that doesn't even have a statistically significant number of participants, and even then doesn't account for a multitude of factors that goes into it.

I mean the only problem blacks face isn't just who their parents are. It's how society sees them, how their teachers treat them, everything.

Hell fucking IQ doesn't even work. The mere fact that you can study for an IQ test and place better shows that it's absolute garbage.

N means number of subjects tested, dumbfuck. Whites score higher than blacks in basically every way. The only part of this you could note is that the blacks have a higher range than the whites, but seeing as they have a lower median and standard deviation, that's some real outlier shit right there.

"Race" is a social construct. We are basically all the same garbage, just a few superficial physical differences.

Gender is not.

RICH BLACKS COMMIT MORE CRIMES THAN POOR WHITES

REMEMBER THIS

It's the same source as OP. He just didn't link it or anything.

Here's the real redpill:

When blacks score higher on IQ tests, they are compensating by doing better on the less g-loaded (indicative of actual intelligence) questions, such as memory related questions, rather then the actual questions deciding intelligence.

It's probably because the parents try harder so they aren't known as the family that raised a nigger

But that's not what the information says :(

... rather than the questions indicating logic/reasoning skills.*

confirmed for never dealing with people with IQs below 80

learn to math
at no time is the black IQ higher than thwe white IQ
you must be black

>Only 3 cases
What did they mean by this?

Doesn't matter anyway, he abandoned his thread.
He'll go find some bias confirming information on the internet somewhere and try again later.

Too few to show a trend.

web.archive.org/web/20150209011833/https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/

>In the US, there is a large stubborn Black-White differential in intelligence (section A). This differential, on the individual and population level, explains a large portion of the social outcome difference. Within populations, intelligence is highly heritable. As such, the behavioral genetic default is that this differential also has a high heritability (section N). It could be otherwise, though. As such, facts on the ground were explored and environmental explanations were evaluated.

>The facts include: (1) the difference is a true difference in psychometric intelligence (Section B), (2) it largely represents a difference in the general factor (Section C), (3) it has shown great persistence, having decreased little in the last century (Section A1), (4) there is currently regression with age (Section A2), (5) there appears to be a robust biological component to the difference (Section E), (6) the difference shows a Spearman/Jensen Effect (Section D and G), (7) biometric analysis indicates that the gap has a sizable genetic component (Section H), (8) the difference is not caused by environmental influences unique to one or the other populations (Section I), (9) if environmental influences are causing the gap they act fairly uniformly across the population (Section K), (10) the difference is no smaller at the upper SES levels than the lower (section C and K), (11) family influences can not explain the difference, statistically explaining a decreasing amount with age (Section L and M), (12) Mixed race individual perform intermediate to monoracial individuals and this phenomena has been noted for centuries (Section O) , (13) the Difference correlates with physical indexes of Caucasian admixture in the Black population (Section P), and (14) environmental interventions appear to show little to no lasting effect (Section S and T).

>>blacks who were adopted by whites score higher than the white average, especially when adopted early
Yeah, that's not what your graph says.

111.5 > 106.3
and
116.8 > 110.4

Causal biological explanations were then explored (Section F) and found to be wanting, capable of explaining at most 1/15th of the gap. Causal cultural explanations were discussed (Section D, H, K and M and elsewhere) and it was noted that these seem to be unable to explain the Jensen Effect, the g-loadedness of the gap, the uniformity of the gap across the IQ spectrum, and the inter-individual between race stability at adulthood.

Pretty much any and all objections people have to the race-IQ stuff is covered by the author in the original link. There's really no disputing that the racial IQ gap is primarily genetic in nature.

exactly
>*Only 3 cases
This tells you that it is cherry picked. How has no one pointed this out yet.
Such obvious bate.

early adopted whites have higher scores, wtf are you on or are numbers just too hard to read?

The white average is 100 in the United States.

>blacks who were adopted by whites score higher than the white average, especially when adopted early
>accompanying picture shows higher mean score for whites than any other group

...

Interesting, but nobody cares about semantics of "X intelligence" or "Y intelligence" for any X=fake,real,actual,bla,bla,bla. What we know is that g is the big deal, the one that matters for success.

So even if blacks have better aspects along other aspects it doesn't matter enough to overcome their crap g.