Because the majority of those studies exclude a significant amount of contributing factors.

Take your cited Minnesota Trans-racial Adoptive Study; there is no comparative sample of children raised by equally advantaged black families. There's also the history of the children to consider, were they all put into care at the same age, raised equally and adopted at the same age? And what of the social environment they were placed into?

A white child raised by whites where the socially dominant culture is white-orientated is going to have a significantly different experience to a child that is black.

>>17054
I never said there weren’t other factors. I just said that even considering race/genetics as a factor is enough to get you blackballed IE James Watson

>>17055
Obviously the answer is because it's a politically incorrect issue and nobody wants to appear racist.

>>17056
Science is supposed to be objective.

>>17057
true but science is also done by people. squishy, fallible people.

>>17057
>>17058
Yes, and since science is done by people, if your results point to real race differences it's remarkably easy for morons to accuse you of inserting that interpretation yourself, therefore making you racist.

>>17053
Many reasons.

First, you should check out those who are most interested in that theory and their political agenda.

Second, you should take cultural differences into account. Such as the fact that US "black" culture is really redneck culture from the british isles.

Third, you should take environmental factors into account. Such as malnourishment, bad law enforcement or even leaded gasoline.

>>17061
see
>>17055

Whether or not there's a perceived agenda does not negate the fact that the gap exists and does not disappear when controlling for other factors.

>>17067
>Whether or not there's a perceived agenda does not negate the fact that the gap exists and does not disappear when controlling for other factors.
And now we're back to >>17054
None of these studies control and account for the other factors. And in doing so they fall into the fallacy of correlation=/=causation.

>>17068
I never said there weren't other factors. Pay attention son.

Correlation != causation goes both ways. Just because they're poor and do worse academically doesn't mean that being poor is the cause. Just because they've suffered systemic racism and do worse academically doesn't mean systemic racism is the cause.

Try not being a hypocrite

>>17061
>>17068
You have groups of people growing up in isolation in vastly different environments with completely different survival strategies, over the course of thousands of generations of darwinian trials. Are we honestly just supposed to pretend that physiological differentiation after Africa stopped at the shoulders?

We literally know of multiple genes which significantly influence intelligence (and behavior), and we know their population frequencies.

You people are insufferable with your inability to consider socially sensitive issues with any degree of rationality.

Everyone wants to externalize blame to the environment in support of the dangerous blank slate delusion, when the relevant background unambiguously shows culture and, yes, genes, play at least equal roles in inequity. These are the bountiful fruits of the long march through the institutions. This is your brain on critical theory.

>>17070
>We literally know of multiple genes which significantly influence intelligence (and behavior), and we know their population frequencies.
Evidence?

Because statistics can be manipulated to say anything.

Because these differences are so minute as to be within error margins.

Because all variables cannot be accounted for.

Because the differences between any two individuals is always going to be larger than between two groups.

Because IQ is not an accurate measure of intelligence.

Because IQ was designed to measure children's learning level, so means fuck-all for adults.

Because intelligence with such small differences is not an accurate determinant of life success or worth to society.


In a nutshell: the reason this is blackballed is because it serves literally no purpose other than being used as white supremacy propaganda.

>>17061
If we're going there, then it's worthwhile to point out that the average poor american white, according to FBI crime statistics, commits substantially less crime per capita than the average poor black. Additionally, the average redneck is actually more intelligent than the average poor black. So while socioeconomic factors certainly do exist, they aren't the whole picture.

>>17075
Alternative hypothesis: niggers are fucking dumb.

>>17375
Evidence?

>>17374
The best predictor of crime is by zipcode, and due to redlining and gentrification, blacks tend to get shoved into the worst neighborhoods and are prevented from leaving for generations.

And "redneck" is not a race or a social group or anything the census could even track. This means that any statistics about them are nonsense. I strongly suspect you made that one up entirely.

Women statistically speaking have smaller brains but since they are a majority (54% of the world is women) they have no guilt in lying to you.

>>17075
Where are you getting this from? IQ is used as a measure of intelligence by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists across all ages. Also the difference in IQ between races is statistically and practically significant.

>>17075
Where are you getting this from? IQ is used as a measure of intelligence by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists across all ages. Also the difference in IQ between races is statistically and practically significant.

>>17455
>IQ is used as a measure of intelligence by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists across all ages
Considering it has zero purpose but to classify and label people (you can't improve your IQ), knowing it doesn't help adults do anything. It would be like saying that a person's fingerprints are "used" by psychiatrists and psychologists. They are not, and IQ is not.

>>17462
It helps inform public policy decisions, and may be used by high IQs to interact with low IQs in such a way that they benefit from the exchange.
It is far easier to push oppressive policies on a segment of the population that literally lacks the capability for coherent thought.

Everyone know the gap exists and that race plays a role, it's just that no one wants to get Watsoned

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-dna-pioneer-s-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-westerners-394898.html