its fucking data

If you want to analyze the report in any way, you should look at the conclusion

You mean couldn’t?

At both times the White
adoptees scored higher than the Black–Black adoptees, and the Black–White adoptees scored between
the White and the Black–Black adoptees [13,14]

Nah

That’s just a common scientific standard

I could care less than I actually do

omg

i could care less abt the conclusion

The conclusion isn't the data

r u serious

No

The website shows

Most of the time the conclusion is abstract and doesn't reflect the data

the data is more important lol exactly run 50

MULTIPLE articles

where they both contradict each other

It's been proven that nurture means very little with regard to IQ lol

Because it's genetic

Proof?

GG @ElectraX, you just advanced to level 10!

Why is this a debate

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/

Ok

The rest of the paper is in French, making it hard for me to read it closely, but its summary table (on page 67 and unnumbered) is clear enough: the sample’s mean score on the WISC/WPPSI was 116.6 with a standard deviation of 11.04. The mean VIQ was 110.8 and the mean PIQ was 119.8. Making the same Flynn effect adjustment as for Frydman and Lynn [11] leads to a mean VIQ of 99 and a mean PIQ of 96–100, both less than the Belgian norm. Subtracting an adoptive boost effect would bring them lower.

Ok so the oh so pure white race which I’m guessing you are part of. They sampled iqs in a bunch of European countries which have effectively identical genes and they found 10 point or more differences in iq

It’s due almost entirely to environmental factors

Not genetic factors

Pomp isn't white

lol

@ElectraX https://archive.is/o/LRe05/www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290028P

lol

You're trying to link race realism to racial supremacy and it's cringe

You just showed them scoring higher

yes whites scoring higher

than blacks in white households

on average

it says

Under the Scarr and Weinberg st4udy