>>4603180How do you propose it affirms the genetic role of IQ as it relates to race? The only thing this study shows is that black children raised by different birth parents end up better off but still underperform compared to others, correct?
The most you can say is that there are other confounding variables that haven't been ruled out. Maybe the child didn't receive proper nutrition before adoption, maybe the child went through increased stress as a result of racial differences while growing up (that whole racism thing), the cultural differences between the adoptee and the non-biological parents being dramatically different and difficult to adjust to, etc., etc.
There are so many different unknowns at play, which can stunt potential IQ growth, that going straight to genetic variables is just ludicrous and beyond the pale. There is no "alternative hypothesis" you can derive from this, unless you have some magical insight into the lives of these children that the researchers didn't.
See, the problem with studying people is that there are so many variables that we simply cannot control for. It is simply unethical to take a child away from their parents and then put them under intense scrutiny to control for every possible variable possible. The amount of statements we can make on the study of people are intrinsically limited due to these moral restrictions.
Therefore when you look at this study, you can't conclude much beyond what they conclude: "Black children fare better in middle to upper class households." Going further than that is going beyond the scope of the study.
