Message from @Katze Miaulitzer

Discord ID: 691447442876399616


2020-03-23 00:43:51 UTC  

scroll down to the conclusion

2020-03-23 00:43:54 UTC  

Granted I could care less about the blacks

2020-03-23 00:44:00 UTC  

conclusion is irrelevant

2020-03-23 00:44:06 UTC  

it gives somewhat of an opinion

2020-03-23 00:44:06 UTC  

“The blacks”

2020-03-23 00:44:11 UTC  

its kind of subjective

2020-03-23 00:44:17 UTC  

Hey hey hey

2020-03-23 00:44:24 UTC  

Black people in general

2020-03-23 00:44:25 UTC  

this is data

2020-03-23 00:44:30 UTC  

That biggest study is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (MTRAS). According to Rushton
and Jensen, it is “also the only transracial adoption study [of IQ] that includes a longitudinal
follow-up” [3] (p. 256). For the study Sandra Scarr and colleagues located White Minnesotans who
had adopted non-White children, and recorded the IQs of the adopters and their children (including
the non-adopted White children). Scarr et al. measured the children’s IQs in two waves, one when the
children had a mean age of 7 and another when they had a mean age of 17. 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].

2020-03-23 00:44:35 UTC  

No it’s really relevant it’s the fucking authors who collected the data interpreting it

2020-03-23 00:44:40 UTC  

I could care less about most races

2020-03-23 00:44:44 UTC  

its not interpreted

2020-03-23 00:44:45 UTC  

lol

2020-03-23 00:44:49 UTC  

its fucking data

2020-03-23 00:44:59 UTC  

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

2020-03-23 00:45:00 UTC  

You mean couldn’t?

2020-03-23 00:45:06 UTC  

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]

2020-03-23 00:45:07 UTC  

Nah

2020-03-23 00:45:12 UTC  

That’s just a common scientific standard

2020-03-23 00:45:16 UTC  

I could care less than I actually do

2020-03-23 00:45:20 UTC  

2020-03-23 00:45:22 UTC  

omg

2020-03-23 00:45:24 UTC  

i could care less abt the conclusion

2020-03-23 00:45:24 UTC  

The conclusion isn't the data

2020-03-23 00:45:24 UTC  

r u serious

2020-03-23 00:45:29 UTC  

No

2020-03-23 00:45:33 UTC  

The website shows

2020-03-23 00:45:34 UTC  

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

2020-03-23 00:45:34 UTC  

the data is more important lol exactly run 50

2020-03-23 00:45:36 UTC  

MULTIPLE articles

2020-03-23 00:45:40 UTC  

where they both contradict each other

2020-03-23 00:46:13 UTC  

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

2020-03-23 00:46:29 UTC  

Because it's genetic

2020-03-23 00:46:29 UTC  

Proof?

2020-03-23 00:46:29 UTC  

GG @ElectraX, you just advanced to level 10!

2020-03-23 00:46:33 UTC  

Why is this a debate

2020-03-23 00:46:35 UTC  

Ok

2020-03-23 00:47:03 UTC  

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.

2020-03-23 00:47:41 UTC  

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