/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8896849
>Feel free to try and prove me wrong.
okay then

>The SAT (/ɛs eJ ti/; es-AY-tee) is a standardized test widely used for college admissions in the United States. Introduced in 1926, its name and scoring have changed several times; originally called the Scholastic Aptitude Test, it was later called the Scholastic Assessment Test, then the SAT I: Reasoning Test, then the SAT Reasoning Test, and now, simply the SAT.

The problem with this chart is very simple. At the lowest brackets only the brightest take SAT. The higher you go, the larger % of people take the SAT - but in highest brackets it's no longer only the brightest that take it, since it's expected of a rich kid to go to college etc. If you are with me so far then you'd clearly see that you are unable to compare the lowest brackets to the highest due to selection bias.
What you can do is compare the same income brackets.

Converting to IQ's (approx) you get pic related - a gap of about 10 points.
Which makes sense given
http://www.peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black%20iq%20gains.pdf

And there's also the fact that it's impossible for the dumbest whites to be smarter than the smartest blacks, which a cursory view of the IQ distributions of the two groups will tell you.

>>8878191
>pretending to be black
Not cool
>>8878760
not a myth, unless you are willing to commit how many races there are and what are the criteria
>>8878767
human fixation index is too low to have subspecies, so i don't know what that's about
>>8878769
European ancestry does not actually mean higher IQ in black americans
http://www.peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/more%20on%20black%20iq.pdf

what your chart shows is that the whiter you are the more likely you are to be born well off
>>8878774
same as one of the above
>>8878777
This is my favorite one.
Let's look at the "persisting gap in SAT scores"
Converting to IQ you get pic related.

It's impossible to compare the lowest brackets to the higher brackets because only smart people take SAT in the lowest brackets. This is NOT the case in the upper brackets where everybody takes them, due to being middle class etc. You have selection bias basically.

What your chart shows is that the gap is about 10 points.
This is mostly confirmed
http://www.peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black%20iq%20gains.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230828068_Group_Differences_in_IQ_Are_Best_Understood_as_Environmental_in_Origin
>>8878781
Not a fallacy at all.
Max human Fst is about 0.15 meaning 0.15 is between human groups and 0.85 is within the group. Because you can identify who belongs to what group doesn't mean variance is higher.
>>8878845
>smartest blacks as smart as dumbest whites hurr
I explained why this is false.
Also, a cursory look at IQ means and SD's will tell you that blacks have to have an average of 60 for that to be true.
>>8879341
False.
From one of the studies in my post(about environment etc)
>Small gains for highly g-loaded tests seem unlikely to us. Gains in sub-Saharan African
countries of 0.50 to 0.70 SD in response to
a few months of Western-style education
have been reported for heavily g-loaded
fluid intelligence tests (McFie, 1961).

>>8845135
>lynn data
lol

About the "persisting gap" in SAT scores.
It does persist.
Converting it to an IQ scale we see pic related.

BUT, it is entirely wrong to compare across income simply because of selection bias.

As you can imagine people taking SAT scores in the lowest brackets are some of the brightest.
People taking SAT scores in the higher brackets ARE NOT selected like this. Everybody there will take the SAT. Read the above again and again until it makes sense.
Basically the lower class sample is an elite sample, the middle class samples ARE NOT.

What the chart shows is that there is ~10 point IQ gap. Consistent with the study in >>8845093 http://humancond.org/papers/nisbett12_intelligence_new_findings, blacks have closed in 5 points the last few decades.

Thank you for BTFO'ing yourself.
Your other infographics are of similar "quality".

>gets shat on in last thread
>makes a new one
Aight then

OP picture is a fake that includes only white students who applied to university

This is why you can't find a source
>>8835647
>>8835385

>But do the children of Black professionals really score lower than American poor Whites? No they don’t. To see why, I’ll convert those SAT scores onto an IQ like scale with a mean of 100 instead of 1017, which is what it was in 2008, and a standard deviation of 15 instead of 231, which is what it was in 2012(I couldn’t find the SD data for 2008):
>Now you see what’s wrong with that graph. It’s not a representative sample. Not everyone takes the SAT and the higher income kids are more likely to take it than the lower-income kids. How many of the kids whose parents make more than 200k take the SAT? Probably almost all of them, no matter how dull they are their parents will make them take the test. Of the kids whose parents make under 20k only those who expect to go to college take the test. So this data does not prove that the children of Black American professionals are not as smart as the children of the White lower class. In fact it shows that they have a score that is probably similar to that of the average White, note that the score of 97.7 is compared to other students who take the SAT, a population that is smarter than average.

OP, retarded yet again

but of course this post will just be ignored or misunderstood, quick go make a new thread instead