2/3
>>13533179>[SATs] They are literally and I mean literally more factual and concrete than (AMP, 2000; Skills for Life, 2003; AMP, 2007; UKHLS, 2011-13; PIAAC, 2012;MCS, 2015)No they aren't. This is just another case of you dismissing evidence that inconveniences you.
In particular, the PIAAC (Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies) is not restricted to the UK, but it's tested by the OECD in all its 36 member countries and has a strong correlation with the SATs which is not surprising since it measures the same things. I
>why do you think I brought up the GCSE in the 1st place. It's because I knew its the UK equivalent of SAT, hence why I brought it up.The correlation between GCSE results and g is 0.81
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/intelligence-and-educational-achievementThe correlation between SAT results and g is 0.82
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15147489/So there is no reason whatsoever to prop up one while dismissing the other.
Nigerians, Leonese and Ghanians do better than White Britons on the GCSEs (see pic
>>13530032), moreover, they also do very well on CAT4 exams which literally measure g, CAT literally meaning Cognitive Assessment Test, see pic
>>13532166>It is enough for both the jap and the chinese to surpass the white/asian IQ gap.Chinese didn't suffer apartheid, your comparison is beyond retarded. Even so, rural Chinese had pretty dismal IQ scores until very recently
>I can say the exact same shit to you. You still haven't adreess a single 1 of my studies foundWhat is there to address? I have no problem admitting that African-Americans do poorly in the SATs, it supports my position given that they have significant white admixture yet they do worse than full-blooded Blacks from the darkest Africa.. You shoot yourself in the foot by talking over and over about African-Americans
>they tested for elite highly educated African GCSEs are nationwide exams, retard
They are not elite students
