Bullshit Ace. Nancy Pelosi I have belatedly found is one of those women with big tits that tries to hide them as best she can instead of flaunting them.

And I already knew she had bigger balls (figuratively) than anyone in congress as demonstrated by making Boner cry. I just never realized how fuckable she was.

 

At least once in this thread I have documented that whites whose parents are poor and poorly educated average higher SAT scores than blacks whose parents are affluent and well educated.

Here is the documentation again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Education.png

 

I know what might get me thinking. A little bit. Ready?

A comparative longitudinal study of white children adopted at (or near) birth by black parents, as compared to black children adopted at (or near) birth by white parents, with children of nuclear families as the control.

If such a study were to show the white adoptees at a clear advantage, IQ -wise, over the black adoptees, it still would not convince me that you're not full of bull-cucka. But I suppose I would at least be willing to give your position due consideration without collapsing immediately into laughter.

 

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

Published on April 26, 2005 at 5:29 PM

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic...

5.Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

This study is of whites, blacks, and Asians adopted by white middle class parents. I could not find a study of whites, blacks, and Asians adopted by black middle class parents.

 

Was my question a little difficult for you to answer or are you just ignoring me.

 

Unless an academic has tenure and a national reputation it is often dangerous to agree with The Bell Curve, and similar works. If it does not destroy a career, it will damage it.

When Charles Murray spoke at Harvard fairly recently the entire sociology department made a public display of walking out. Of those who walked out I am sure there were some who would have liked to listen to his talk, and some who agreed with him, but it was too dangerous to stay. I was told that by a college professor who told me what I told you about the atmosphere of fear about expressing truths that anyone who has much contact with blacks is thoroughly aware of.

Those who pretend to disagree with The Bell Curve emphasize methodology, or they simply shout "Racist!" and let it go at that. It remains the case that blacks continue to perform much less well than whites on the average. No Child Left Behind has once again made this obvious.

I have talked to a number of people who have taught in black public schools in the United States. I have never talked to one who has said that it was a rewarding, or even a safe experience. They all agree that blacks students are much less intelligent than white students, and that many are dangerous to be around.

It is particularly dangerous to be a white student in a school where the overwhelming majority is black. Frequently the white students are advised to use the rest room in the nurses' office, because they get beaten up if they use the other rest rooms.

BTW, I have just learned that Prince Harry helped a friend who was mugged. I have been trying to find the race of the mugger. Mugging is a crime blacks specialize in because it requires physical strength, but no intelligence.

 

You do know that it is 2011, these graphs are 16 years out of date.
Also how accurate are they? (as they come from wiki we have been told may not be accurate), can you find something more up to date and reliable.

 

Be careful what you seek. What's the point, DL? anecdotal stories serve no real purpose now, do they?

 

First of all: READ the words as they are written, NOT what you think or want to see...

I HAVE NOT quoted you as saying Wiki links are UNVERIFIABLE, ONLY that I DID NOT want you jumping in and preaching this...

Lets put this into SIMPLE terms:

I witness an accident, and I give a statement to the police..
WITHOUT any other account of the accident, I am viewed as a CREDIBLE witness..

When the police find that another person also viewed the accident, and thier account is different to mine. Both statements need VERIFYING...

A third witness comes forward and provides a statement which shows that the account I gave is FALSE...

This makes my statement UNVERIFIABLE and I become an UNCREDIBLE witness...

NOW which of this DO YOU NOT understand:

From the posted information it is shown that anyone who posts a Wikipedia link. HAS to provide a VERIFIABLE and CREDIBLE source from where they attained the information...
This DOES NOT have to be of a university standard, JUST a source of information that can be referenced...

 

Your normal "blah" statement. Now answer this question.

Why was the BC not put up for peer review before publishing?

 

Most of those who would have been asked to review it either felt that it was virtuous to lie, or dangerous to tell the truth. The basic assertions of The Bell Curve are obvious, and always have been.

 

How can you be so sure of this, CONSIDERING it NEVER happened...

You are judging what OTHER people would think by your own opinions, THAT is NOT an UNBIASED view...

 

The study that you have found is cited in a Wiki article.

I detest Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I did read it, first out of courtesy, since you took the trouble to dig for it (thanks for that, DL), and second because I, too, am having trouble finding studies of white children of black adoptive parents.

The article that you cite is inconclusive as to findings. The Wiki article speculates that the decline in IQ scores as the children age may be attributable to differences in the tests taken. (I.e., the kids took a different test battery at age 17 than they took at age 7).

I have found a cross-racial study, published by Princeton (and summarized at http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml), which does include comparative studies of black and white children. The study does not exactly conform to my parameters, because many of the children in the study are at least partially raised by orphanages.

In the Princeton study, declines in IQ are also seen as children age, but this study attributes the declines to a progressive lessening of familial influence as the children age and move out into the world.

In both the study you cite, and in the one I have found, it seems that environmental and testing factors confound the results and leave the question of hereditability inconclusive.

Both of these studies express support of my contention that a cross-comparative analysis of transracial adoptive children would effectively eliminate environment as a correlate. Unfortunately, it is much more common that white parents adopt blacks, than the reverse. (As to why this is the case, I will not speculate.)

I am still looking for a study that explicitly compares black and white children in trans-racial the adoptive families.

If I find a credible one, I will post again. In the meantime, I do have to admit this Bell Curve business has me thinking. Because I am troubled that affluent blacks tend not to adopt whites. I want to know why that is.

 

Maybe because there are plenty of black babies to adopt?

 

I'm not sure how it plays out statistically, but I've been told that many black people are opposed to black children being adopted by white parents...I assume because they worry that adopted black children won't grow up with an appreciation of their own racial heritage.

But by the same token, black parents may be much less inclined to adopt white children...and there are a lot of black children out there who are candidates for adoption.

So...it's complicated.

 

Reading efforts to refute The Bell Curve are like reading efforts to refute a bad weather forecast when I can tell that there is a forty mile an hour wind, twenty-eight degrees Fahrenheit, and a freezing rain by going outside.

Efforts to refute The Bell Curve also make me think of efforts to refute the theory of evolution by picking at any possible discrepancy. The Bell Curve and similar books are thoroughly Darwinian in maintaining that what really matters are innate differences rather than acquired differences.

The argument that the average Australian Aborigine has the same innate potential as the average Ashkenazic Jew is not only obviously false, it as comically and grotesquely bizarre as commenting favorably on the Emperor's new clothes, knowing full well that the Emperor is stark naked.

Does anyone seriously believe those arguments, or do they think they are being virtuous by reciting them in public?

 

I've never seen it as all that complicated. The vast majority of white people don't want to adopt any kids except white. And by my observation at least, when they do, especially "stars" they like to go to exotic places and import kids.

Its always made me laugh when people try to say adoption is an alternative for abortion. Bullshit. People will pay to adopt a white baby when they would not take a minority baby for free.

 

You're probably right on all counts.

 

When the Ashkenazic Jews can prove they've survived 60,000 yrs of continuous culture as the Australian Aborigines have done then maybe, and only just maybe they might be able to claim to have done something remarkable.

http://www.didjshop.com/shop1/AbCulturecart.html

 

First of all, and most obviously, I do not feel any animosity toward the Australian Aborigines at all. They fascinate me, and yes, they have been badly treated by white settlers. Nevertheless, I do not see why surviving in Australia was any more difficult than surviving in Europe for nearly two thousand years despite frequent persecution, occasional pogroms, and eventually the Holocaust.