aquilo que o zenith fala vem explicado no link da wiki que aqui meti (que eh onde ele provavelmente leu isto originalmente mas nao meteu aqui porque queria esconder a sua origem)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_StudyInterpretations[edit]
Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding of the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions.
Both Levin[7] and Lynn [8] argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.
Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr [9] responded to Levin [7] and Lynn[8]. They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences; but that
they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[9]
In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible,
and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake.
The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry).
We should have been agnostic on the conclusions [...]."[10]
----------
a ultima frase mata logo a tese do zenith e mais uma vez mostra que ele nao pesca nada dos assuntos que comenta
mais uma vez se demonstra que o zenith eh o
toto pretencioso que ja todos sabiamos ser
mas vamos por partes
os 2 grupos tinham 18 pontos de QI a separa-los, ou seja 1.2 SDs (deixo as percentagens para o zenith, "o estatistico")
isto eh uma diferenca enorme .
qq razao que separe 2 grupos 1.2 SDs tem de ser gigante, nao pode ser uma piquinhice rebuscada. os autores do estudo tentaram encontrar alternativas a hipotese hereditaria mas nao encontraram nenhuma razao clara para as grandes diferencas de QI registadas, limitaram-se a desejar que existissem outros factores alem do hereditario e deram algumas hipoteses especulativas
que nao conseguiram demonstrar (eles proprios admitem isso, ver acima). Tudo para evitarem a hipotese mais logica e simples.
Um dos autores admitiu em 1998 ter aldrabado as interpretacoes ambientais para agradar a colegas que acreditam em factores ambientais e arrepende-se de o ter feito. Leiam acima. Isto eh mais um caso em que os autores se assustaram pois nao querem ser vistos pelos colegas como racistas. O mesmo autor tb
negou a tese do zenith e disse que o estudo
tb apoiava a visao hereditaria (penso que so apoia essa visao, mas pelo menos o autor admite claramente que o estudo apoia a hereditariedade). Vejam a bold no texto.
Portanto o que temos sao uns tipos q por sua propria admissao tinham medo dos colegas e inventaram razoes pouco crediveis para explicarem uma enorme diferenca de 1.2 SDs com factores nao hereditarios qd os factores ambientais ja tinham sido qs eliminados pelo proprio estudo. Depois em 1998 retractaram-se. So um toto nao ve o que se passou aqui.
Ja a explicacao do Lynn eh que faz mais sentido, porque a diferenca tem de ser algo com grande impacto e nao algo rebuscado, inventado
a posteriori para negar o obvio e agradar aos coleguinhas pcs (como foi admitido) . E como o proprio Lynn refere, ate os dados dos mulatos apoiam a teoria hereditaria.
Para totos como o zenith saberem uma coisa: qd os dados estao criados qq outro cientista os pode usar. As conclusoes nao sao propriedade de quem cria os dados.
