(Original post by bitofaledge)
Further, to be specific on your socioeconomic argument. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study dispels this myth that poor/crime ridden area = crime, and further backs my argument that biological/racial induced low IQ = crime. Over 100 black children where adopted by affluent/rich/wealthy white or black parents that lived in a nice area. IQ was taken at ages 7 and 17. The children under two white parents scored better average IQ scores overall by 17 points (!) than when adopted by two black parents, also living in a similar well off area. Therefore, it can be concluded from this data that the socioeconomic argument is effectively void, as even under black parents in a similar well off area to white parents; the scores were 17 IQ points lower compared to what it was if the child was bought up under two white parents.
I'm mainly interested in this part of the response, because it appears problematic - at the least.
The problem with the study is that there are far too many variables and unknowns at play to make that genetic determination which could stunt the potential for IQ growth. You're very own source outlines the views of the authors of the original study with them telling us that pre-adoption factors confound
the genetic argument. In addition to this, the authors tell us
that "We feel that the balance of evidence, although not conclusive, favors a predominantly environmental etiology underlying racial differences in intelligence and that the burden of proof is on researchers who argue for the predominance of genetic racial differences." So we've a flawed conclusion. If I look further, for instance, I discover a recent paper
that looks at adoption studies (beyond but also including the Minnesota example) which suggests that "most of the average racial IQ differences in those studies are spurious, arising from methodological issues and disregard of contrary results. When all of the cited data are considered with these issues in mind, they are not compelling evidence for large and consistent IQ differences between East Asian, White, and Black adoptees raised by White parents. This paper then introduces further adoption data which have yet to be considered in the race and IQ debate. The totality of the data turn out to be at least as consonant with a nil hypothesis or model: the IQs of adoptees raised by Whites in comparable environments are hardly affected by the adoptees’ race."
Also, African immigrants to the US in recent decades have higher levels of education
than the overall US population and show higher incomes
than the US average. What does that prove? That blacks are genetically smarter and more productive than whites and asians? If 'Blacks have the lowest IQ of all races, by a large proportion' and IQ is supposed to be a measure of intelligence, then how on earth is it possible for a group of black people to be outperforming white people by such a large margin? Stacking race against race doesn't work.