Like actually read it, and not simply get their opinion from a hysterical lefty blog?
If so, what is your own opinion on it?
I just listened to Murray on Sam Harris's podcast, and thought his reasoning throughout was very sound and dispassionate. Obviously it's inevitable that the part about race would be highly controversial, but it's not the whole book, and if anything he prescribes a more individualist view of society, rather than judging people's talents solely on their shared genes.
It's kind of annoying that college kids who weren't even born in 1994 lump this guy in with the likes of Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannapoulos, without even giving him a chance to speak.
Btw, this is not /pol/ bait; I'm a solid lefty myself. I just can't stand aggressive, self-righteous ignorance.
Planning on picking it up after my exams are finished. The podcast really opened my eyes, the only thing I had been told about IQ before hand was the 'not a good measure of intelligence' meme
Brayden Morales
Also they do dance around the non-whites/Asians having lower IQ, talking on variance etc., but it really feels like a potentially strong argument for supremacy.
Jaxon Clark
Yes, and Sam does push back a little on that, asking what would be the point of proving such a variance in average IQ between groups, other than to provide support (unintentionally or not) to racist causes. Murray's central argument is that any such variance is largely irrelevant in the face of individual capability.
Owen Young
>(((Herrnstein)))
Eli Martin
The shit about race is overblown and it's actually ironic. The core concept of the book is the "cognitive elite" which according to the book succeed regardless of race, class, or gender but instead due to cognitive ability. It's like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and how they used their cognitive ability to succeed and become rich and highly influential to society enough to influence the social order. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_elite Don't tell you Apple and Microsoft and friends haven't had a substantial impact on various social aspects.
Cooper Watson
The problem is that the underperformance of certain demographics is taken to mean the system is biased against them by people who assume equality.
Ian Turner
I read it entirely.
Its good. Its just a really substantial summary of all the intelligence research up until when it was published, which I believe was 1991.
I listened to that podcast too. I think Sam Harris is under interpretting the data. He said that the black and white IQ distributions greatly overlap, and that we should treat everyone as individuals. I agree on the "treat everyone as individuals part", thats fair and just treatment. The problem is, the black IQ has lower variance, and is a standard deviation below the white IQ. Thats a big difference, not "substantial overlap". That means if you are an average IQ white person, you are smarter than like 95% of all the black people you could possibly meet. You think people are just going to "treat everyone as individuals" when they can make 95% accurate judgements on people based off the color of their skin alone? Im not calling for a race war, thats terrifying, but I am saying that a lot of people (like Sam Harris) seriously underestimate the plausibility of that and lesser conflict in our future.
>It's like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and how they used their cognitive ability to succeed
I can tell you didnt read the book.
Leo Rodriguez
I read the book. But recently, I read some "hysterical" blog: >huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bellcurvescience.htm So I got curious and started actually looking into the studies myself instead of relying on books to sum up studies for me.
In the studies cited in the above link, such as the Minnesota adopted baby study, the authors themselves do indeed admit the statistical issues of their study and warn against drawing deep conclusions from it. And there are indeed several studies that contradict the conclusions of the Bell Curve, many of which aren't any weaker than the adopted baby study.
Murray also cited Lynn heavily. However, Lynn's methodologies actually border on intellectual dishonesty: >The Dangers of Unsystematic Selection Methods and the Representativeness of 46 Samples of African Test-Takers >Wicherts, Jelte M. ; Dolan, Conor V. ; Van Der Maas, Han L. J. >Intelligence, 2010, Vol.38(1), p.30-37 [Peer Reviewed Journal] This meta-study shows how in Lynn's sub-Saharan IQ studies, the sampled IQ is the prime determinant of whether a sample is considered representative or not. It's almost comedy. In some cases Lynn outright contradicts himself, rejecting a study for having quality X, then admitting another study with the same quality.
>Nature 297, 222 - 223 (20 May 1982); doi:10.1038/297222a0 >IQ in Japan and the United States shows a growing disparity Here's another Lynn gem: Japanese IQ is 111 (>10 points higher than White IQ!). Too bad another study looked at his samples and found he was only comparing elite japanese professionals to the american average IQs.
Of course Murray minimizes or simply fails to mentions the substantial counterpoints to the studies he cites. His intellectual dishonesty comes complete with an erudite and "dispassionate" veneer, but that shouldn't matter if you're listening to the actual content.
James Gomez
>Has anyone here actually read this? Nope.
>Like actually read it, and not simply get their opinion from a hysterical lefty blog? Nope.
>If so, what is your own opinion on it? As far as I can tell from the excerpts I've read, it's saying what we know. Genetics exist, and society has trends. It mostly just presents the data.
>It's kind of annoying that college kids who weren't even born in 1994 lump this guy in with the likes of Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannapoulos, without even giving him a chance to speak. Did you really expect their ilk to distinguish between social commentators and researchers? As far as I'm concerned there is no low enough of an expectation to hold them to. Ever since the soviet subversion caused a shift in academia, all pretense of principles were abandoned.
>I'm a solid lefty myself. I just can't stand aggressive, self-righteous ignorance. Consider changing teams? We have better arguments, give us a listen.
Jacob Bell
>Too bad another study looked at his samples and found he was only comparing elite japanese professionals to the american average IQs. The average east Asian IQ is ridiculously high though, like 109 or something.
Angel Murphy
Japs and Jews are smarter than Anglos, on average.
>Btw, this is not /pol/ bait; I'm a solid lefty myself.
>being this new at LARPing as a man of facts and logic We don't call ourselves "lefties", piggot (that's a portmanteau of "pig" and "faggot" -- it means "pig-faggot")
You would never post this thread if you weren't baiting, because you'd have actually looked into the studies and found them lacking
>all pretense of principles were abandoned. >calling Murray a "researcher" when everyone knows the abstract and the conclusion were the first two sections done
>The average east Asian IQ is ridiculously high though, like 109 or something. >Japs are smarter Citation?
Juan Bell
>>calling Murray a "researcher" when everyone knows the abstract and the conclusion were the first two sections done Can you think of a better term?
Also there is nothing wrong with trying to find evidence to support your view. Not being impartial doesn't make you wrong.
Anthony Fisher
>the authors themselves do indeed admit the statistical issues of their study and warn against drawing deep conclusions from it
But what were the actual issues? You have to reference the issue, and not go defer to authority of what the authors say.
>indeed several studies that contradict the conclusions of the Bell Curve, many of which aren't any weaker than the adopted baby study.
Reference 'em
>Nope.
Ive read it you jerk
I think its closer to 103 or 104. Three or four points above the white IQ.
>calling Murray a "researcher" when everyone knows the abstract and the conclusion were the first two sections done
Well its not really a paper. The book is a summary of existing knowledge. It wasnt an experiment.
The book isnt really about arguing for something, but he doesnt draw some political conclusions. The big take away was that Americans are separating themselves on the basis of IQ, and that since IQ is an immensely important trait in modern society, a class of economically and socially doomed people will emerge. Such class disparity cant be good.
Dominic Butler
>> The black-white gap has decreased since 1994. And it doesn't provide any real data on Hispanics.
It is outdated.
Noah Harris
Not by any stretch.
Aiden Howard
It's unclear to me if this is an improvement or not in racial disparity. Is a linear measure to be assumed?
Ryan Sanchez
>Also there is nothing wrong with trying to find evidence to support your view. Not being impartial doesn't make you wrong. Of course not. What makes you wrong is when you start massaging your data to generate fake evidence instead of just "finding" evidence, and when you handwave away evidence that contradicts your preconceived conclusion.
>What were the actual issues? Paragraph 10 of pic related
>Reference 'em All the other paragraphs
>The book is a summary of existing knowledge. Too generous. The book is a summary of existing dodgy, biased, and invalid data. It then proceeds to draw conclusions based on that data. Naturally, the result is the book is garbage.
Bentley Gray
>Psychology and sociology are shit sciences Was anyone actually surprised by this?
Adrian Hill
Controversial opinion: There may be genes associated with intelligence.
The May 22 issue of Nature Genetics has a genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence. They cite the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. They show that the identified genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue, and pathway analysis indicating the involvement of genes regulating cell development. Then they show that these genes may be associated with other traits.
Justin Williams
This basically. Racial explanations of IQ gaps fail to explain why places like, say, Denmark can jump from Africa-tier to marvelous and then skid to a halt. On a side note, I find it odd that so many people through history have assumed their system is literally perfect, the apex of human achievement, and that any individual who struggles must be flawed. People even do this when the majority of the population is struggling in said system!
Christopher Myers
>Hispanics have only 1 point over Blacks Holy shit, they didn't even improve that much, either, compared to Blacks, and it looks like nigs will catch up.
Blacks are officially smarter than spics. This is news to me.
Cameron Clark
Nope, it only has decreased among kids and teenagers, and we know that gains in that period almost never translate into gains in
It's not controversial at all and those aren't the first (nor will they be the last) hits from GWA studies.
Ayden Wood
*into adulthood. In other words, just because the gap decreases among kids, doesn't mean it's going to decrease among adults. This has been shows time and time again, among whites, blacks, whatever.
Landon Martinez
That study only explains 5% of variance in intelligence.
How heritable something is does not imply difference sin heritability between populations. That would imply large differences in genetics between populations, which is the opposite of what we measure in humans.
Landon Ward
>large differences in genetics it doesn't have to be large you irredeemable brainlet
Elijah Murphy
Here's another controversial opinion which you chose to omit. From the abstract of the study you are referring to.
>Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heratiblity2 for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10−29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence.
Here they use the phrase twin based heritability. But what's more important is - they find a significant genetic correlation between childhood and adult intelligence. Which is very important.
Secondly. >Intelligence is associated with important economic and health-related life outcomes1. Despite intelligence having substantial heritability2 (0.54) and a confirmed polygenic nature, initial genetic studies were mostly underpowered >0.54 So i guess twin based heritability and heritability are two different things, huh?
Carter Edwards
For a trait like intelligence, which probably has hundreds or thousands of genes contributing to it, that would be huge differences in genetics that would have already been plainly observable.
For example, if IQ gaps between races were caused by specific genes, when we would have found those genes 40 years ago because of clustering in allele frequencies on such a large scale.
Jackson Turner
Those are not opinions.
John Smith
I am saying that this is an opinion - just to be kind with peoples' preconceive sensibilities and feelings on how intelligence works. >Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heratiblity2 for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10−29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence. Since IQ gaps in children are basically non-existent as compared with those that can be seen in adults.
Jordan King
False interpretations of data people don't understand are most definitely opinions.
Tyler Diaz
>Nope, it only has decreased among kids and teenagers, and we know that gains in that period almost never translate into gains in Aaha, so both hispanic and black IQ drops after they finish high school, but somehow the white and asian IQ doesn't drop or only drops by very little
Mhm, yeah that makes perfect sense
Hudson Morales
>that would be huge differences in genetics that would have already been plainly observable. Depends on how big the gap is. Say the european-american/african-american gap is explained by genetics for one third (so 5 points), you wouldn't see if not after lots of research on the subject. You don't seem to understand the point. It's *gains* in childhood IQ that most of the times don't translate into gains in adult individuals. If there are no gains, this doesn't apply.
Mason Wood
>Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heratiblity2 for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10−29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence.
Ok, why do you think that is.
Brandon Rogers
>Depends on how big the gap is. Say the european-american/african-american gap is explained by genetics for one third (so 5 points), you wouldn't see if not after lots of research on the subject. You clearly have no understanding of bioinformatics, and you're just here to spout bullshit. You are clearly unaware of the large statistical power of genetics right now. In that paper with 78.000 individuals as a sample size, even a single gene with disproportionate clustering of alleles would have stood out like a lightbulb.
There simply isn't enough genetic variance, let alone grouping of that variance between populations, for large gaps in IQ to be explained by heritability. This is common knowledge to anyone with an education. It's not a conspiracy.
Robert Kelly
Not him, but I have a question for you.
What does it mean for the results that the people in the study were all Europeans? Would the study have an easier time finding IQ genes if the population was more diverse?
Daniel Clark
Why do I think IQ in childhood and in adulthood correlate? Because it's the same people we're talking about? user, I really don't think you're getting this. I'm not talking about the average Joe Smith getting dumber after highschool, I'm talking about individuals or group of individuals which after interventions (such as adoption) seem to gain a significant amount of IQ (say 5-10 points) when they're child but that gain doesn't seem to still be there when they're adults.
user, what the hell are you talking about, 78k is small for a GWAS. And it's a homogeneous sample (thank god), how the hell are they going to find differences between populations, even more if the differences are because of epistatic effects.
>Why do I think IQ in childhood and in adulthood correlate? You do realize that what we see in reality is that the black white IQ gap really appears after high school. Because black scores tend to drop while whites/asians barely move. I would say that's an environmental effect, but I don't really know. While in high school the gap is under 10 points.
Hudson Anderson
Sample size is not what makes genetic methods statistically powerful, you dolt. It's the basic principles of DNA and genomes that do. You clearly have no education in genetics beyond highschool, or maybe an intro college class. And now you've just said a random genetics word you learned on the internet pretending it is somehow a confounding factor is these studies. Thanks for the keks. Go educate yourself.
Jaxson Russell
>Sample size is not what makes genetic methods statistically powerful, you dolt. user, are you drunk?
Aiden Powell
Also, I didn't say epistasis is a confounding factor for GWAS', can you even read?
Jacob Diaz
>t. negroid """"intellectual""""
James Campbell
Again, you fail to understand the difference between overall heritability of a trait, and claiming that differences in the trait are due to differences in heritability between the populations.
For example, if 70% of IQ is determined by genetics, but we all have similar genetics, then the differences in IQ are due to the other 30%.
Jace Cooper
>I'm not /pol/ I'm actually a liberal :^)
I bet you don't even understand what methods are used in a GWA.
Do realize this is how you idiots reveal yourself, right? It's like going up to a mechanic, saying your car isn't working and claiming you're out of blinker fluid, then calling him an idiots when he calls you one.
Hunter James
>Again, you fail to understand No, I don't, you just can't read what I write. I never said that knowing the heritability of a trait within two populations means that we also know the heritability of that trait between the two populations. Literally never said that, nor did I ever imply it or anything close to it, nor does the article I cited say anything similar. It's as if you were replying to someone else, like you're repeating talking points.
John Wright
user, you're just making a fool out of yourself, you say inane things like sample size doesn't matter in GWA studies, now you say "a GWA", as if you think that GWAS is the plural of GWA. The s is for study, user, if there's someone who's talking about blinker fluid, it's you.
Hunter Thomas
except that asians have the highest iq average
iq is meaningless anyway, no respectable scientist considers it a meaningful statistic
I don't know man, the NAEP seems reasonable to me. The white and the Asian (and the Hispanic) scores seem pretty much spot on, why should the black one be wrong. Scores are based on math and reading.
>1st off, cognitive testing doesn't equal iq hmmmmmm >into the trash it goes You're right, we should ask plumbers or astrophysicists about cognitive testing.
Jack Russell
you could, since their opinions have about the same value as the psychologists'
Joseph Hughes
Sample size doesn't matter because of the size of the human genome, the frequency of SNVs, and the relative proportion of SNP variance between your groups. Overall sample size is irrelevant.
Jaxon Edwards
user, this is bad bait.
Brayden Parker
>Sample size doesn't matter user, you're crazy, why do you think people are building bigger and bigger databases for these studies? Because it's fun? Why would they use a sample of 70k instead of 7k if size doesn't matter?
Mason Ward
Also, what the hell do SNVs have to with this?
Leo Reed
Have you ever heard of p-hacking?
Benjamin Wright
p hacking is easier on small samples, not large
Juan Brown
user, were you projecting earlier when you talked about saying words that make you look as if you understood what you're talking about? What does p-hacking have to do with this? Moreover, how does it help your point? If anything, saying that we should have bigger dbs in order to make sure that the results are true (despite the fact that gwa studies are already designed to lower the sensitivity in favor of specificity)
Xavier Martin
*helps my case, not yours.
Carson Russell
This
Hunter Adams
I just got here t.p-hacking user
Camden Parker
/pol/ is, apparently, since they keep citing this "hard science" to support their narrative.
they're kind of like little children wearing daddy's shirt and tie. they don't even realize how ridiculous they look. it's funny as hell, but also a little sad when you consider their actual ages
Owen James
If there is any human variance, then it would be weird if none of that difference were between races.
>That would imply large differences in genetics between populations, which is the opposite of what we measure in humans.
Come on man. You and I share no alleles. We have 0% common genetics, but we are both human, and the genes themselves we share are perhaps 100%. Do yourself a learn.
> Nisbett
You mean the guy who wrote that super prejudiced Vox piece against Charles Murray? Seriously? Go read Steve Sailer's piece over on Vox in response.
Have you read any of those studies? Or have you just taken Nisbett's word on this? I'd like to read through them with you, and see what you think. On the surface of things I have a few objections.
The first of which is that many of the studies measure child IQ, which is much less heritable than adult IQ. You can improve childhood IQ with environmental forces, but as children age they end up with the IQ they would have had anyway.
The WWII study on black and white fathers. The black and white men who went to war, and subsequently fathered kids with German women is now a random sample. There is no way. Today's military, for example, rejects applicants below 1 STD of the average intelligence.
The studies into degree of Europeanness and IQ are interesting, but they arent decisive. Murray suspected, and we now know to a greater degree, that the genetic mechanism of intelligence between blacks and whites are different. Black and white intelligence is determined on different genes. Ive read studies that do find Europeanness and IQ to be highly correlated, but to the extent that is isnt, isnt so surprising. There shouldnt be a clear relationship.
Jackson Perry
>IQ
literally pseudoscience
Elijah Nguyen
>p-hacking is easier on small samples No, p-hacking is easier with more incidents of what you want to present subset from a larger database since the concept of p-values literally is designed to work that way, and many people tend to believe larger sample size equates to a better study without first questioning how the researcher chose to clean their dataset. Which could in theory range from outright throwing away or ignoring data you don't want to use, to purposefully giving yourself a reason to exclude samples which would be contradictory to what you want to find by finding correlates to that result and omitting those correlates "for reasons" so objective research can only support your finding even with all the random sampling in the world.
Jackson Torres
>Steve Sailer well memed
Liam Rogers
this
I'm Hispanic and I scored a 99th percentile on the RAVEN at age 15 and now my measured IQ is 94 at 22. Genetics can be cruel.
Isaac Martin
>Have you read any of those studies? Or have you just taken Nisbett's word on this? I'd like to read through them with you, and see what you think. On the surface of things I have a few objections. I notice you keep asking "Did you read the study?" ad nauseum to everyone who doesn't agree with you. It's getting tired. Rest assured I have looked over every study I have cited so far, and read several of the studies those studies cite as well. Please, go ahead and read them yourself. It's why I included the citations.
As I anticipated, you've started pointing out this and that issue with the studies (ironically, without having read them). Save your time. Anyone can see there are various issues with each and every study -- the excerpt itself even enumerates a few of the biggest ones. You're missing the point, which is that if Murray was going to disregard the studies that don't support his narrative, he should have at least mentioned why. Of course, that would have weakened his argument, since the Scarr & Weinberg body of studies suffer from many of the same difficulties as the studies he handwaved away. It gives the impression he was more concerned with making his point than with presenting an honest picture of the literature.
>You mean the guy who wrote that super prejudiced Vox piece against Charles Murray? Seriously? Go read Steve Sailer's piece over on Vox in response. How disappointing to see you using ad hominem and referencing pop-science editorials.
I had consciously decided not to mention that Murray is funded by a pro-eugenics right-wing think tank, or how he burned a cross on a hilltop in his teens, etc., because it's mere ad hominem / appeal to motive, and you'd seemed interested in genuine discussion. Hence up until now I've pointedly kept my posts focused on studies, meta-studies, and statistics. I see now that I was wasting my time; you're just here for a pop science meme debate. Well, have fun.
Sebastian Murphy
I read it years ago. It all seems really convincing and straightforward. The book doesn't seem to be mean to anyone in particular.
The differences between races is clear. It doesn't mean we treat other races badly.
Carson Howard
>he burned a cross on a hilltop in his teens
OMG Murray did any edgy thing in his teens. Like no other teenager ever.
What convinces me, and I have read Murray's book and many more including lots of studies, is the accumulation of evidence against blacks on average having high IQ potential.
> In every country they are the underclass > since forever (ancient Greeks knew blacks were not smart) > countries run by blacks are shit (except Botswana which has immense mineral wealth and small population) > adoption studies > blacks test for low IQ everywhere > skin colour correlated with IQ (more black = less IQ) > IQ predicts success in life for blacks just as well as for whites
And yes Murray's book was not mostly about race. It was mostly about the white underclass.
Murray predicted that unless we do something low IQ people are going to have to be all locked up. Of course that's what has happened - look at incarceration rates in the US.
Michael Jackson
>Please, go ahead and read them yourself.
Id like too. I googled for a few and couldnt find them, so if you have any links Id appreciate it.
>I had consciously decided not to mention that Murray is funded by a pro-eugenics right-wing think tank
Which one?
> how he burned a cross on a hilltop in his teens
That sounds nuts. I dont believe it.
> pop science
I get it. Editorials arent substantial. Its not ad hominem, its just not relevant. I dont think its a big deal if we both recognize it as side conversation, to an otherwise relaxed argument. That said if you are going to talk about Murray's funding, or what he did as a teenager then you are on my level on this "ad hominem" stuff.
Cooper Smith
>be kind with peoples' feelings
fuck off. science doesn't give a shit about your feelings.
Grayson Fisher
One significant factor is culture. Some people just have a culture of stupidity.
You know the type: Studying is what white people do. I moved to this school district, and my child attended this school, so why ain't he be learnt? Knowledge, is not something that can be poured into someone.
Hudson Cook
> one significant factor is culture
fake news
Kevin Gutierrez
> That means if you are an average IQ white person, you are smarter than like 95% of all the black people you could possibly meet
Except that you are wrong. IQ is NOT highly correlated to race, but to poverty and educational quality.
The highest correlations of IQ > 125 (.67 and .74) were those that were married and identifying as middle class.
Those with IQs less than 75 correlated to high school dropouts and those in poverty.
> I can tell you didnt read the book. I can tell you didn't, either.
Owen Gomez
If people really wanted to put an end to all this all they'd have to do is take a couple white children from birth, force feed them shitty ebt tier food, make sure they had shitty or no health care, put them in a bad crime ridden school district, glue them in front of a TV 3-6 hours a day watching BET every day after school, have the temp parents be poor enough to not afford to pay the light and gas bills routinely, put a couple liquor stores that don't card around the corner from their house, a strong intimidating police presence, put some lead paint on the walls, and implant psuedo, yet incredibly believable, life events into each of their research storylines where a couple of their friends/acquaintances die, join gangs, get pregnant, get assaulted, etc. and compare performance. We'd have to hire some really good actors and do a damn good job faking those deaths.
If the white kids still have 100 IQ as young adults across the board we have our answers.
Jackson Wright
>Except that you are wrong. IQ is NOT highly correlated to race, but to poverty and educational quality.
Its correlated with both. And race, poverty, and educatipn are all greatly correlated, so theres a lot of confounding going on that needs to he sorted out. Which is what twin and adoption studies control for.
Hudson Evans
>If people really wanted to put an end to all this all they'd have to do is take a couple white children from birth, force feed them shitty ebt tier food, make sure they had shitty or no health care, put them in a bad crime ridden school district
What do you mean 'force'? There are white kids in those conditions and we control for them, and we look at their outcomes, and we measure their intelligence.
Tyler Reyes
I mean we control their storyline from birth. Instead of simply having a white family living in a bad neighborhood with maintained white cultural values and claiming that the environment is similar, we literally make the environment what we want it to be by planting a newborn white child in a bad environment and controlling their home culture. We pay homeless people to be deadbeats that roam in and out of the house that claim to be the parents, we cut the power every couple months, we snatch up a couple of the kids friends and fake their deaths, we buy out the liquors stores and make sure they don't card, put crack on the street corners, etc.
All the studies ever done have caveats here and there pertaining to the study. They never properly control for everything and instead fuck around with the data after the fact. The simplest and most objective way to end this debate once and for all is to take a random sample of healthy white babies and raise them from birth in a controlled environment designed to be terrible. It's absolutely retarded to just put a stable family in a poor neighborhood for a year, or go find stable white families that had to downsize and pretend that you've actually done a real study. Go all out and get the final results.
Levi Watson
>twin and adoption studies control for Do they really control for it though? Simply separating two identical people and measuring their performance across years seems a bit unsound if you are separating the two children when they are old enough to be aware of what they are involved in (8+ years at start of study) and especially if they are aware that they have a brother or sister they are being measured against and even more so if they keep on contact with them.
Similar problems apply even if the children are adopted young and unaware of the study if the parents are screened beforehand by adoption agencies before taking in the children, and therefore similarly meet adoption standards and likely cultural values as families. If these families are aware of the study, they may purposefully guide and grow their children in a competitive fashion to best out the other parents, instead of letting the child develop naturally, and then it's not a blind study but a closed race between similar competitors. This would also be the tip of the iceberg for a multitude of implications when it comes to transracial adoption studies.
Does anyone have any in depth links on the screening processes of the agencies used for these studies, ages at which the kids were picked up, and whether or not the families and/or children knew what was happening? Most studies posted here and on /pol/ don't actually mention this stuff (some do mention age, though), or if they do, they handwave it by saying it was "controlled for" without going into depth about the control method and it's kind of important.
John Nguyen
> Take an ethnic subgroup of people > Imprison them in controlled condition camps > Perform science experiments on them I see our friends from Germany are joining in.
Joseph Perry
I thought about this, and I couldn't help but feel bad.
When I was 18, I read that he was funded by white nationalists, and I decided that his studies must be faulty. I then went outside.
The world we live in isn't fair. Black people aren't retarded, but the vast majority of blacks are dumb. That doesn't mean there are no 120 IQ blacks roaming the earth, but it does mean the average black man you run into is violent and aggressive.
I'd like to say it's just a book, but the world doesn't agree.
Thomas Murphy
Yeah all that is crazy and not at all necessary. Twin studies can compare fraternal and identical twins, and see the difference between how much 50% gene share and 100% gene share contribute. Identical twins are much more similar than fraternal twins. You dont have to control for literally everything to isolate what is genetic and what is environmental.
Luis Allen
See Twins studies have the possibility of being inherently flawed. We need better control.
Dylan Moore
I'm fine with that. Western Ethno-Nationalists are fine with being 2nd/3d in IQ. It's not about supremacy but propagation.
Thomas Ramirez
> Simply separating two identical people and measuring their performance across year
Okay so thats an adoption study. I said twin and adoption study. So there are many ways of measuring this. There are a lot of different kinds of studies. You can just be like "Well it would be unsound if they did such and such". You actually have to look to see if the studies do such and such.
> if they are aware that they have a brother or sister they are being measured against and even more so if they keep on contact with them.
Im sorry this is just nuts. The circumstance I believe you've depicted, 8 year old identical twins reared apart with knowledge of their circumstance, I believe is incredibly rare. Even if it did occur how could that single aspect greatly influence anyones life.
Owen Rivera
>Twins studies have the possibility of being inherently flawed
Listen buddy, you have the possibility of being inherently flawed. You are going to need to say something more concrete than that.
Brody Ortiz
>you have to look and see if the studies do such and such And that's the problem. Many don't elaborate on this. They just state they did a twin study, or that they possibly just test young children who might not be fully aware of the situation. Next to no study goes into detail about this and these circumstances have great potential impact on final results.
This whole thing falls apart if the kids are being broken up and then evaluated in a non-random fashion by going to families which meet adoption standards. Likewise for non adoption twin studies done with twins who know what's going on, or are in families where the parents actively push their children to do the same things all the time, reared them exactly the same from a young age prior to the study (effectively just temporarily separating two people taught to think the same way), etc. instead of doing a proper control where the twins are purposefully broken up at birth and go down completely different paths and compared against two twins together since birth living in the same homes.
Juan Baker
See And read the post. Twin studies often don't go into deep detail about how the twins are broken up. They may say where they go, but they rarely give background on the subjects themselves and the people caring for them. It's intellectually dishonest if the families they are split between aren't chosen at random and instead fit adoption standards, if the families are in on the experiment, if the split happens between two children who are old enough to have developed alongside each other beforehand, etc.
Lots of studies don't cover these and similar topics/questions in their explanations for some reason and it sort of bothers me. Potentially these studies are not controlled experiments, but rather competitions between two competitors already known to be similar or pushed to be similar due to external circumstances making it so.
Michael Brown
nope, i don't need a book to tell me the obvious
Jeremiah Long
>y just test young children who might not be fully aware of the situation
Why does that matter.
>This whole thing falls apart if the kids are being broken up and then evaluated in a non-random fashion by going to families which meet adoption standards.
I dont think any kids are getting broken up. I dont know what you are talking about. No one is getting assigned parents to optimize a study. Its a natural experiment.
>It's intellectually dishonest if the families they are split between aren't chosen at random and instead fit adoption standards
No, you can still get a lot of great insights from non-random adoptive parents. Children from biological parents of various traits, perform differently when adopted. I bet their up bringing is great, as those parents are great. You still see differences, and those difference greatly correlate with the traits of the biological parents.
>tions for some reason and it sort of bothers me.
Dont worry user, theyll find a cure.
Carson Cox
I like it already
Robert Adams
>Why does that matter. Because it's not in any way a blind study then.
>I dont think any kids are getting broken up. I dont know what you are talking about. No one is getting assigned parents to optimize a study. Its a natural experiment. Then such "experiments" amount to observations about a closed, nonrandom participating group and nothing more. This isn't applicable into the real world and it speaks nothing on potential cognitive differences or similarities between twins.
>No, you can still get a lot of great insights from non-random adoptive parents. Children from biological parents of various traits, perform differently when adopted. I bet their up bringing is great, as those parents are great. You still see differences, and those difference greatly correlate with the traits of the biological parents. The lack of randomness and adherence to adoption standards is what makes the study questionable. The families potentially being good families is beside the point. Children with different biological traits may perform differently due to social stigma as a student and being treated differently by their parents, siblings, or peers. Parents who are in on the study may be inclined to be more lax or strict with an adoptee of one background than another which completely ruins everything. Some parents might not even actually be good parents and you might literally be comparing a white child that has gone to a good white family concerned with their well-being to a black child that has gone to a white family thats collecting "exotic" children like pokemon (Pic related). There is no control group where we see other children sent to bad homes so we can properly gauge if these differences are in biolgical intellectual gains and differences or not. Without that, at most it's just a nice story about some orphans with conclusions drawn post hoc, and subject to possible survivor bias. Not a legit study.
>Dont worry user, theyll find a cure. Grow up.
Xavier Anderson
>Minnesota adopted baby study I found the Minnesota transracial adoption study very convincing, it has been the largest study of this kind and completely rejects the thesis of deep environmental factor in intelligence variation. You repeat the same from what I heard from egalitarians that didn't want to admit the overwhelming evidence for genetic disparities in intelligence between races, for ideological reasons.
Ian Walker
Why did you find it statistically convincing? Additionally what convinced you that there was no flaw in the methodology of data collection? Asking for a friend.
