The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was methodologically flawed. “Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements.”

Reframed, the study seemed to find (a) black kids are adopted less readily and (b) the longer a kid spends in the foster system, the lower their IQ at 17. (There is also limited controlling for epigenetic factors because we didn’t understand those well in the 1970s and 80s.)

Based on how new human cognition is, and genetically similar human races are, it would be somewhat groundbreaking to find an emergent complex trait like IQ to map to social constructs like race, particularly ones as broad as American white and black. (There is more genetic diversity in single African tribes than in some small European countries. And American whites and blacks are all complex hybridized social categories.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...

It seems like the root of your statement is with the existence of "race" as a purely biological classification. Wikipedia correctly notes the consensus position that race is a social construct [0] that's difficult to use accurately when discussing IQ. Grok makes the implicit and incorrect assumption that genetic factors = race, among other issues.

[0] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race

Have you considered the possibility that your opinion is just not representative of the scientific consensus?

>As you can see, Wikipedia is very dismissive to the point of effectively lying.

Did I miss where you presented evidence that wikipedia is wrong? You seem to be taking an assumption you carry (race is related to IQ) and assuming everyone believes it's true as well, thus wikipedia is lying.

[flagged]