[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was methodologically flawed. “Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements.”

Reframed, the study seemed to find (a) black kids are adopted less readily and (b) the longer a kid spends in the foster system, the lower their IQ at 17. (There is also limited controlling for epigenetic factors because we didn’t understand those well in the 1970s and 80s.)

Based on how new human cognition is, and genetically similar human races are, it would be somewhat groundbreaking to find an emergent complex trait like IQ to map to social constructs like race, particularly ones as broad as American white and black. (There is more genetic diversity in single African tribes than in some small European countries. And American whites and blacks are all complex hybridized social categories.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...

▲

AuryGlenz 13 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

tptacek 13 hours ago | parent [-]

What? No you can't.

And: it remains perfectly OK to study racial differences in IQ. It's an actively studied topic. In fact, it's studied by at least three major scientific fields (quantitative psychology, behavioral genetics, and molecular genetics). The idea that you can't is a cringe online racist canard borne out of the fact that the studies aren't coming out the way they want them to.

▲

AuryGlenz 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Does it now? Noah Carl would disagree. He was a researcher at Cambridge University that was dismissed after an open letter signed by over 1,400 academics and students accusing him of "racist pseudoscience" for merely arguing that race-IQ research should not be off-limits.

James Flynn (of the Flynn effect) has also publicly stated that grants for research clarifying genetic vs. environmental causes of IQ gaps weren't approved because of university fears of public furor.

	▲	tptacek 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're trying to axiomatically win an argument that is already settled empirically. It won't work. You can just read the papers. My point being: the papers exist, and more are published every year. Once you acknowledge that, your argument is dead. Literally no matter what the papers say. Don't make dumb arguments. Noah Carl has a sociology doctorate. He doesn't work in the fields that study this; he just tries to launder his way into them. Flynn is, famously, a race/IQ skeptic.
	▲	akerl_ 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		https://medium.com/@racescienceopenletter/open-letter-no-to-... https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/01/cambridge-... > for merely arguing that race-IQ research should not be off-limits. Help me connect the dots here.

▲

AlotOfReading 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems like the root of your statement is with the existence of "race" as a purely biological classification. Wikipedia correctly notes the consensus position that race is a social construct [0] that's difficult to use accurately when discussing IQ. Grok makes the implicit and incorrect assumption that genetic factors = race, among other issues.

[0] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race

▲

darkwater 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wonder how much longer that link will stay up with the current administration...

▲

AuryGlenz 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok, change it to "what we call race as a proxy for general geographic locations that people's ancestors come from."

Which is what we all mean by race, anyways.

▲

AlotOfReading 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not what your previous post was talking about. But if you insist, at least make your point clear. "African Americans" and "Africans" are wildly different genetic populations that get subsumed under the same "Black" racial category in the US. Which one were you talking about?

The latter is more genetically diverse than any other human population by an incredible margin. Making generalized statements about them is impossible (including this one). As for African American populations, ancestry estimates of how closely related they are to African populations vary massively for each individual. Many people are much closer to "white" populations than any African population, due to the history of African Americans in North America. If you really mean race as a geographic proxy, the "black" label is simply confusing what you actually mean.

	▲	AuryGlenz 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I understand your point (although I find the babybathwater-ing to be tiring), and I didn't mean to be drawn into a debate about this. But that was entirely the point - that there's a debate. Wikipedia would have you believe that there isn't. For what it's worth, I'm mixed as hell. European, Asian, Jewish, north african, and native american. I look white, though - and I am, in fact, majority European ancestry. Therefore in most studies (of anything race related), I would presumably be lumped in with white people. It's not a perfect "measure," but it's still the easiest proxy for geographic location of our ancestors that we have and on a population level it works just fine for studies.

▲

lobf 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But then what are you arguing? Geographic location determines IQ? (An inherently flawed measurement itself)

▲

AuryGlenz 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased.

Though I will say it's beyond argument that geographic ancestry has an effect on IQ on a statistical group level (the reasons for this are what's debated), and that IQ is the best measurement of G that we have.

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased.

It "is biased" to document human knowledge as accurately as possible. Is there something wrong with that?

▲

lobf 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Okay but you need to… actually present these arguments. Right now you’re stating your position and then affirming it as fact and expecting everyone to trust you.

	▲	AuryGlenz 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I already gave you two large meta-analyses and more on the first point along with a and as far as the second goes in the field of psychology that's as established as 2+2=4 is in the math world. If you really want to research that yourself go ahead; I don't feel like I should need to waste my time.

▲

epgui 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Have you considered the possibility that your opinion is just not representative of the scientific consensus?

▲

AuryGlenz 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I asked ChatGPT on whether or not it was the "scientific consensus."

"Anonymous surveys of intelligence experts reveal division: a 2016 survey found that about 49% attributed 50% or more of the Black-White gap to genetics, while over 80% attributed at least 20%; an earlier 1980s survey showed similar splits. These views are more common in private or anonymous contexts, contrasting with public statements from bodies like the APA that find no support for genetic explanations."

Hm, sure seems like Wikipedia should probably have a more balanced, nuanced discussion considering the experts are split at least 50/50.

	▲	lcnPylGDnU4H9OF an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The "scientific consensus" the parent comment mentioned is referring to published studies, with data to back up their conclusions. The numbers you are citing seem to be from an opinion poll. Where did any of the 49% surveyed get the idea that "50% or more of the Black-White gap" can be "attributed" to genetics? What is their methodology for the attribution? Bringing up an opinion poll as a counterpoint makes it read like you're arguing that Wikipedia should focus less on fact and more on opinion. Of course, you're free to think what you wish, but I suspect that's where most disagree.

▲

charcircuit 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wikipedia does not care about scientific consensus. It just summarizes "reliable" secondary sources.

▲

epgui 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Wrong in two different ways:

- this tends to approximate consensus.

- Wikipedia does care, and has a policy on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus

	▲	charcircuit 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>and has a policy on this Look at the top of that page. >This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

▲

lobf 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>As you can see, Wikipedia is very dismissive to the point of effectively lying.

Did I miss where you presented evidence that wikipedia is wrong? You seem to be taking an assumption you carry (race is related to IQ) and assuming everyone believes it's true as well, thus wikipedia is lying.

▲

AuryGlenz 13 hours ago | parent [-]

There have been many, many studies that show that "race" is related to IQ. A true, unbiased article would show that as well as any well-founded criticisms of it.

▲

lobf 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you cite them then?

	▲	AuryGlenz 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 297–330. Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 235–294. Neisser, U., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. (APA Task Force report). American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.

▲

erxam 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]