>>11815930Thanks for giving us something substantive to discuss.
>Again you are quoting a sentece that says AS HIGH AS, being deliberately dishonest. There are recent studies that challenge these asumptions and show that environmental factors are just as determinant, because IQ is a malleable trait. The heritability of IQ also changes with age."As high as", in this context, just compares the new studies with the older ones. It is significant.
As for the studies you're quoting there are several limits to their significance, especially in regards to your original point that that blacks' IQ can entirely be explained by environmental factors.
As you point out, heritability changes with age. More precisely, it increases with age. And most of your adoption studies do not test subjects in adulthood.
The one that does is the one that shows the lowest increases.
The highest result it shows is about half the IQ gap between african americans and european americans. And it's in the case of adoption in an extremely higher status family.
The difference between the average education status of AAs and EAs is smaller than that of the families of the children being compared.
Studies that compare adopted to orphanage children don't account for the selection done during the process of adoption.
The one that studies malnourished koreans also don't account for the reasons why they were malnourished. The comparison between the koreans that arrived at an above-average IQ and the romanians that arrived at a below-average IQ point towards persisting between-group differences.
And African-americans are not malnourished, and they consistently have lower successes than european-americans from families of the same SES level.
