A study was done on children from various backgrounds (oriental, Black, mixed-race) who where adopted by White families at an early age, and grew up in middle-class homes. Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study The chart below summarizes the results for Oriental children adopted into White middle-class homes. Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Trans-racial adoption does not appear to either increase or decrease performance on IQ tests. "The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains. So what could be the possible causes for these findings?
The study looked at 130 families, not including the control group (white children born into white families who were not adopted. This sample size was large enough to find statistically significant differences between the groups. In other words, there was a correlation between race classification and IQ test scores, which could not be due to random chance. Is it just a coincidence that the ranking order for the different groups in this study was the same as is observed in other studies that did not particularly look at adopted children?
Since Hispanics are not a "race," how did they define them for this study? Since Hispanics can be white, black, asian, amerindian, or any mix in between, I don't see how this study could be valid.
Technically this is correct, Hispanics are not actually considered a race, although in some ways they are much like one. Hispanics have mixed native meso-American ancestry. There is a high level of cultural, social, and ethnic diversity amongst Hispanics, so it is difficult to classify them all together into a single group. But several generalisations can be made. The particular ethnic mix that constitutes Hispanics is very different from the ethnic mix that typically constitutes Americans. Most White American ancestors came from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany, with many also coming from Poland, Scandinavia, and a few from France. In contrast, Hispanics are generally (but not always) are mestizo (mixed native meso-American), with more Spanish and Italian ancestors. It is not an even mix. Hispanics tend to loosely separate out into different groups depending on how much native ancestry they have. There are even a small number of Latin Americans who are not mestizos, with spanish-german ancestry, who could be considered to be Hispanic, depending on the definition of the term.
There is also a problem about diminished expectations and the results that this can have on how much attention and nuturing a child gets. I will not, at this point, belabor anything we discussed regarding the validity of IQ tests as an over-all diagnostic of mental horse power. I would still need to know something about the socio-ecconomic and educational status of the adoptive parents and their diets. For instance, do the people who adopt Asian kids try to feed them Asian-style foods or corn bread and fat back? Or maybe they did include that. What is the source for this crap?
what about the african heat, doesn't it shrink brain sizes? colder climates make the brains bigger right?
Social progressives typically like to blame IQ differences on malnourishment and disease: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20120307 (I find it funny that, no matter what the issue, they still manage to figure out a way to blame the White man.) I think there are probably several different contributing factors.
Yes, this true. My own opinion is that most of brain size variation is connected to temperature and not cognitive abilities. But quite a lot is still connected to cognitive abilities.
Brain size isn't the whole picture anyway -- what matters is the number of connections, not the size. A big brain with few connections is dumber than a small brain with lots of connections.
H. floresiensis had a brain about in the mid range for a chimpanzee but made stone tools not the least bit inferior to those made by H. erectus.
But it only took so much intelligence to make stone tools. That is like saying that monkeys can figure out how to peel a banana just as good as humans so they must be similiarly intelligent.
If it's so easy, you make a stone tool. Pics or it didn't happen. Stone tools of any type are beyond the capabilities of a chimp
You misunderstand. You and a chimp can both peel a banana. That doesn't mean you have equal intelligence. Floresiensis and Erectus could both make stone tools. That doesn't mean they had equal intelligence.
