A Transracial Adoption Study
Upper-class white families adopted children. The parents had IQs that were 1 SD above the white mean. Their own biological children are included in the study.
Here you have more than you asked for. The same socioeconomic status and even the same families. Kids being raised with the same values, going to the same schools, eating the same diets, mingling in the same social circles, being exposed to the same parental attitudes and discipline, being exposed to the same work ethic of their parents, being exposed to the same child rearing practices of the parents, etc.
Tick, tick, tick . . . now that you've been provided what you've asked for how are you going to move the goalposts and what new thing will you demand?
If you're going to spout creationist nonsense but simply omit the god part of it, then own up to it. You're relying on some mystery forcefield preventing variation in intelligence from developing when we know very well that variation in intelligence is a characteristic we see about us all day, every day, in all the people we meet. Clearly there isn't a static metric on intelligence. If it can vary amongst individuals, then there is nothing preventing variation in intelligence having different distribution between groups.#2. comparing my views to Creationists doesn't make yours any more right. In fact, it tends to suggest the opposite.
The data you are presenting is out of context. What is it you are trying to prove, exactly?
Are you basing this line of reasoning on the common interpretation of that data or the most cutting edge (or somewhere in-between)?
Whatever the researcher's opinions on IQ tests, they're immaterial to his findings and he stands behind them. They've been poured over by plenty of people who are interested in the topic and they're still standing.\
The data is out of context because I'm going one better on Thunder who merely wanted a study which controlled for socioeconoimc status. This controls for SES and it also controls for an assortment of family environment variables.
ETA: If you want to take this discussion beyond IQ tests, I'm willing. I've got a lot more I can unload into this thread that undermines the creationist perspective and doesn't rely on IQ tests.
Last edited by RiverDad; 08-16-11 at 12:35 AM.
The findings may stand as accurate, but what is it you seek to interpret that data to mean? How are you applying it?
An IQ tests results are affected as much by the way the taker organizes their thinking as it is by the taker's ability to learn.
It's not really accurate as a determinant of how "smart" a person is in a practical, real-world sense.
Just as an example, that same author has stated that people who are more creative can give "wrong" answers because they view the problem from a different perspective.
He has also related creativity to leadership in a very positive light. Your presented data cannot really be used to measure ones potential to lead intelligently.
Last edited by Just1Voice; 08-16-11 at 01:01 AM.
Last edited by Just1Voice; 08-16-11 at 01:23 AM.
Of course I'm smarter than Obama, he's American.
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)