MAIN ARGUMENT
As far as I know, the main argument about Race and IQ that comes from white supremacists is that ethnics (excluding east Asians even though they think they are also intellectually inferior to whites on the basis that they don't have creative intelligence) are too low IQ to participate and contribute to society more specifically western societies. Firstly they say that ethnics are low IQs and the reason is their genetics. They argue that the "race " of these ethnics is the reason, that non-white races are inherently low IQs. The whole argument is basically that non-whites have low IQs. Let's address this:
ARGUMENT AGAINST THEIR RETARDED CLAIM
When we ask them for the evidence for their claim, they infamously show unscientific and skewed data, which is provided by Lynn and Becker, who are literally funded by the pioneer fund. There's a clear conflict of interest but for the sake of the argument let's take this data at face value. First let's see how IQs are often categorized:
130 and above: Very Superior
120–129: Superior
110–119: High Average
90–109: Average
80–89: Low Average
70–79: Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Below 70: Intellectual Disability (also known as mental retardation)
And now see how Lynn and Becker showed the IQ
of different countries
Morocco : 67
Greece: 90
this classify the average Moroccan as mentally impaired with the intellectual capacity of an individual with down syndrome which is obviously false
So apparently according to Lynn and Becker average person in Morocco is mentally retarded, down syndrome tier. That fact alone is enough to reject their bullshit data on IQ, jfl if you believe this.
Cultural Bias in IQ Tests:
Let's take an example let me show you how IQ isn't genetic but rather more multifaceted and nuanced. Believing the hereditarian hypothesis, which is used by sfcels, Einstein would always achieve high IQ tests.
The Idea of Einstein achieving a high IQ score irrespective of his environment and socioeconomic conditions deserves further scrutiny. Culture-free intelligence tests simply don't exist. Imagine, an alternate reality where Einstein(with the same genetic makeup as in this reality) was born into the Saan Bushmen tribe, (South African hunter-gatherer society). While our "Saan Bushmen Einstein" might struggle with Western-constructed IQ tests, he would likely excel at tasks critical for survival in his environment – tasks at which a German-born Einstein might fail.
We know that IQ tests have a cultural bias there's substantial research supporting this claim.
For example, this study ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604599/ ) clearly states this
"Our findings confirm that "culture-free" tests should be adapted to each culture and applied together with their culture's specific norms to prevent misclassification and allow for a better, unbiased neuropsychological assessment."
They removed cultural biases and adapted the test to Moroccan culture, and found that Moroccan kids performed better on this test as compared to other IQ tests. This proves that so-called culture-free IQ tests also have biases.
What exactly do IQ tests even measure? In practice, they aim to quantify a specific set of cognitive skills valued in modern industrialized (Western) societies. Ideally, they assess something that is called or is close to "objective intelligence." But the concept of intelligence itself is a topic of ongoing debate, which is acknowledged by Ulric Neisser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Neisser) and by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns) he chaired in 1995 (No so-called "wokeness" back then) to investigate the state of research on the topic.
We try to define and organize intelligence, a complex concept, but achieving complete clarity remains difficult and elusive. Despite progress in some areas, no single explanation has been given that answers all the key questions, nor is there universal agreement on what intelligence truly is. This is further proved by the fact that when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define it, they provided two dozen somewhat different definitions (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-32525-010
Sternberg & Detterman, 1986).
Things have not changed, as more recently observed by cognitive psychologist Ken Richardson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Richardson_(psychologist)) (2017) in a more critical fashion:
" Intelligence is viewed as the most important ingredient of human potential. But there is no generally accepted theoretical model of what it is (in the way that we have such models of other organic functions). Instead, psychologists have adopted physical metaphors: mental speed, energy, power, strength, and so on, together with simple genetic models of how it is distributed in society. The IQ test was invented to create scores that correspond with such metaphors, with the distribution— who is more or less intelligent— already presumed."
"This circularity in IQ testing must not be forgotten or overlooked. IQ tests do not have what is called “construct” validity, in the way that a breathalyzer is calibrated against a model of the passage of alcohol in the bloodstream. They are constructed on the basis of prior beliefs of who is or is not intelligent. But by creating a numerical surrogate of a social class system, they make that system appear to spring from biological rather than social forces. Such ideas are dangerous because they demean the real mental abilities and true potential of most people in everyday social situations."
And I can quote many more cognitive psychologists and psychometricians, who explain how IQ is first culturally biased and don't measure the "objective intelligence" that many people believe. Intelligence is a lot more complicated than. Let's talk about epigenetics ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) well put in simple words it's when certain parts of genes are rearranged without changing the structure of genes in respect to your environment. (Like imagine gene like a bus in which there are three seats at the back and four seats at the front if we would exchange their position it wouldn't really affect the bus much but there would be a considerable change in the bus to its regular users.) This is the easiest explanation I could come up with at this time. So let's see its practical use as we already know that many 100s of genes affect intelligence. Imagine you're born into a hunter-gatherer tribe like the San Bushmen. Your environment constantly interacts with your genes, influencing how they're expressed. This is epigenetics in action. While you have genes for both spatial reasoning (great for navigating the wilderness) and mathematical ability, epigenetics might favor the former. Your daily life – tracking animals, and identifying edible plants – strengthens the neural pathways related to spatial skills. This doesn't mean your math genes disappear, but their expression might be dampened. Now, consider someone born in a modern, industrialized society. Their environment would likely favor the use of different genes. Regular exposure to numbers, problem-solving, and abstract concepts could strengthen neural pathways related to math skills. Epigenetics wouldn't erase their survival or spatial reasoning/awareness genes, but their expression might be less pronounced. But if members of the San tribe were to integrate into an industrialized society for several generations, their descendants would show a gradual shift in gene expression. The environment would continue to favor skills like math, potentially leading to a slight increase in the expression of those genes, while damping the genes for spatial reasoning/awareness.
Here's the main point: epigenetics doesn't rewrite your genes, but it can influence how well-equipped you are to handle your environment. It's an interplay between your genes, your environment, and your experiences. We know almost everyone has genes for intelligence but due to the environment, spatial intelligence genes are preferred or mathematical intelligence genes are preferred.
The 100 year population history and forecast for the 185 countries with measured or estimated mean IQ was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau International Data Base 2003[3], using the mid-year population estimate or projection for each year.
For each year in the hundred year period, each country's estimated population for that year was apportioned into bins of 5 IQ points using a normal distribution with the mean IQ for the country from Lynn and Vanhanen and the 15 point standard deviation defined for IQ scores. These country histogram bins were summed to create a global histogram for each year. Global mean IQ was computed by an average of country IQs weighted by their population.
Lynn and Vanhanen only actually have IQ data for 81 countries and they've estimated the rest. How reliable are those estimates?
In most cases their estimates were made by averaging known IQs of adjacent countries with similar demographic mix. In the few cases of countries with ethnically diverse populations, they estimated IQ based on a weighted average of IQs of the country of origin of each group. They tested this process by using it to estimate IQ of several countries with known IQ and the results correspond well with the measured IQs of those countries. Still, one should bear in mind that 56% of the country IQ figures are estimated, and not based on any actual in-country measurement at all.
And those 81 countries they have IQ data for—there seem to be an awful lot of fudge factors used in computing the numbers they cite in the tables. How trustworthy are they?
Fudge factors? Indeed…more than 25 pages are devoted to explaining the “adjustments”, “corrections”, “calibrations”, and “weightings” which go into that table of 81 numbers. The state of the raw data is more or less hideous. There is no regular, standardised measurement of IQ in nations of the world. One is forced to use sporadic studies, published at widely spaced intervals, using a variety of tests with more or less cultural bias, on populations which may exhibit a variety of selection effects. (For example, if you only test high school children in a country where 75% of children do not attend high school, you can't expect your results to be representative of the population as a whole.) Still, if you want to do this research, you have work with the data at hand.
If population mean IQ indeed correlates strongly with economic performance, then measuring IQ figures for developing countries and studying ways to increase IQ could play an important rôle in development assistance. A UNESCO program to regularly measure IQ of, say, 16 year olds in all countries could provide hard data and, potentially, by permitting assessment of the effectiveness of programs such as nutrition aid for mothers and infants, educational initiatives, etc., do a world of good. Alas, this entire topic is so politically radioactive there is little likelihood of this ever happening.
Won't the Flynn effect compensate for the downward demographic shift in IQ?
The Flynn effect is an undisputed yet enigmatic aspect of IQ testing. Shortly after the first IQ tests were standardised, it was observed that the scores of those taking them tended to rise from year to year, as much as 15 points (one standard deviation) per generation. To maintain a mean score of 100 for the population on which IQ tests were standardised, test makers were forced to make their tests increasingly difficult over the years. In other words, to get the same IQ score as your father, you must perform equally well on a substantially tougher test than he took.
If, for whatever reason, everybody were getting smarter, this would be wonderful news indeed. But a glance at the numbers shows that something very curious must be going on here. If IQ were, in fact, rising at a rate of 15 points per generation then, if the mean IQ of today is 100, that of our grandparents' generation would have been about 70—generally considered the threshold of mental retardation. Clearly, anybody who's spent time with their grandparents and other folks of that generation knows that's utter nonsense.
The literature and music of a century or more ago is clearly not the work of marginally retarded minds, and its abundance indicates those who wrote it were not rare exceptions in a generally dull population. Consider genius in the past. Most people considered geniuses have IQs in the vicinity of 150, or 3 1/3 standard deviations above the mean IQ of 100. In a population with a mean IQ of 100, individuals with IQs of 150 occur with a frequency of about one in 2300 people—they're rare, but every medium-sized town has one or more, and even a small country with a population of one million has more than 425 such geniuses.
Now, in a population with a mean IQ of 70, which naïve interpretation of the Flynn effect would deem our grandparents to have had, genius-level IQs of 150 would be 5 1/3 standard deviations above the mean and occur, on average, in only one out of 20,396,324 people. If we take the Flynn effect as 3 IQ points per decade, then we'd expect a mean IQ of 70 around the year 1900. In 1900, the world population was about 1.7 thousand million, which would imply there were only 80 people with genius-level IQs in the entire world of 1900. The merest glance at the history of that era will reveal how ridiculous a supposition this is.
Adults, whatever their opinion may be of “what's the matter with kids today”, are most unlikely to cite “they're just too doggone smart!” So, the Flynn effect is a conundrum: a wide variety of tests which agree with one another and reliably predict outcomes we identify with “intelligence” all indicate that the general population is becoming more intelligent at an almost dizzying rate, while other evidence for this (for example, individuals with Einstein-calibre intelligence being almost 10,000 times more common than a hundred years ago) is notably absent. There is no shortage of hypotheses for what's going on, but little evidence to support any of them. Flynn himself believes that IQ tests measure test-taking and problem-solving ability, not genuine intelligence, and that this has risen over time as more and more children receive compulsory education and are subjected to ever more tests. Improved nutrition over the 20th century is often cited as a factor, as well as the introduction of egalitarian welfare state systems in developed countries tending to reduce poverty. But all of these are factors which one would expect to eventually reach a plateau, and that doesn't seem to have happened, at least so far.
This isn't a document about the Flynn effect (although it risks becoming one unless I wind this up rather soon), and since no solution to this long-standing puzzle is at hand, one can only speculate on what it really means. Since correction for the Flynn effect is substantial in Lynn and Vanhanen's national IQ estimates, and can be expected to strongly influence IQ scores published in the future, it is essential one bear it in mind in any analysis of population intelligence trends.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, we can easily say that the IQ gap between races isn't genetic but it depends upon socioeconomic conditions, environmental factors, and cultural biases of IQ tests. And all the research that has said otherwise is surprisingly funded by the pioneer fund and has a minority of scientists on their payroll who say that. In contrast, the majority of scientists disagree with race and IQ bullshit. Most humans with good environmental conditions have an IQ between 85-100.
And I didn't go into way more details, and nitty gritties of it. But this is enough evidence to convince someone who thinks rationally and not with his little SFcel feelings.
Retards should avoid entering and writing DNR.
Credits: @rope infinity on .is, added 2 other arguments and deleted the GDP per capita because too long and poorly relevant compared to the rest, and corrected some things
As far as I know, the main argument about Race and IQ that comes from white supremacists is that ethnics (excluding east Asians even though they think they are also intellectually inferior to whites on the basis that they don't have creative intelligence) are too low IQ to participate and contribute to society more specifically western societies. Firstly they say that ethnics are low IQs and the reason is their genetics. They argue that the "race " of these ethnics is the reason, that non-white races are inherently low IQs. The whole argument is basically that non-whites have low IQs. Let's address this:
ARGUMENT AGAINST THEIR RETARDED CLAIM
When we ask them for the evidence for their claim, they infamously show unscientific and skewed data, which is provided by Lynn and Becker, who are literally funded by the pioneer fund. There's a clear conflict of interest but for the sake of the argument let's take this data at face value. First let's see how IQs are often categorized:
130 and above: Very Superior
120–129: Superior
110–119: High Average
90–109: Average
80–89: Low Average
70–79: Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Below 70: Intellectual Disability (also known as mental retardation)
And now see how Lynn and Becker showed the IQ
of different countries
Morocco : 67
Greece: 90
this classify the average Moroccan as mentally impaired with the intellectual capacity of an individual with down syndrome which is obviously false
So apparently according to Lynn and Becker average person in Morocco is mentally retarded, down syndrome tier. That fact alone is enough to reject their bullshit data on IQ, jfl if you believe this.
Cultural Bias in IQ Tests:
Let's take an example let me show you how IQ isn't genetic but rather more multifaceted and nuanced. Believing the hereditarian hypothesis, which is used by sfcels, Einstein would always achieve high IQ tests.
The Idea of Einstein achieving a high IQ score irrespective of his environment and socioeconomic conditions deserves further scrutiny. Culture-free intelligence tests simply don't exist. Imagine, an alternate reality where Einstein(with the same genetic makeup as in this reality) was born into the Saan Bushmen tribe, (South African hunter-gatherer society). While our "Saan Bushmen Einstein" might struggle with Western-constructed IQ tests, he would likely excel at tasks critical for survival in his environment – tasks at which a German-born Einstein might fail.
We know that IQ tests have a cultural bias there's substantial research supporting this claim.
For example, this study ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604599/ ) clearly states this
"Our findings confirm that "culture-free" tests should be adapted to each culture and applied together with their culture's specific norms to prevent misclassification and allow for a better, unbiased neuropsychological assessment."
They removed cultural biases and adapted the test to Moroccan culture, and found that Moroccan kids performed better on this test as compared to other IQ tests. This proves that so-called culture-free IQ tests also have biases.
What exactly do IQ tests even measure? In practice, they aim to quantify a specific set of cognitive skills valued in modern industrialized (Western) societies. Ideally, they assess something that is called or is close to "objective intelligence." But the concept of intelligence itself is a topic of ongoing debate, which is acknowledged by Ulric Neisser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Neisser) and by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns) he chaired in 1995 (No so-called "wokeness" back then) to investigate the state of research on the topic.
We try to define and organize intelligence, a complex concept, but achieving complete clarity remains difficult and elusive. Despite progress in some areas, no single explanation has been given that answers all the key questions, nor is there universal agreement on what intelligence truly is. This is further proved by the fact that when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define it, they provided two dozen somewhat different definitions (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-32525-010
Sternberg & Detterman, 1986).
Things have not changed, as more recently observed by cognitive psychologist Ken Richardson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Richardson_(psychologist)) (2017) in a more critical fashion:
" Intelligence is viewed as the most important ingredient of human potential. But there is no generally accepted theoretical model of what it is (in the way that we have such models of other organic functions). Instead, psychologists have adopted physical metaphors: mental speed, energy, power, strength, and so on, together with simple genetic models of how it is distributed in society. The IQ test was invented to create scores that correspond with such metaphors, with the distribution— who is more or less intelligent— already presumed."
"This circularity in IQ testing must not be forgotten or overlooked. IQ tests do not have what is called “construct” validity, in the way that a breathalyzer is calibrated against a model of the passage of alcohol in the bloodstream. They are constructed on the basis of prior beliefs of who is or is not intelligent. But by creating a numerical surrogate of a social class system, they make that system appear to spring from biological rather than social forces. Such ideas are dangerous because they demean the real mental abilities and true potential of most people in everyday social situations."
And I can quote many more cognitive psychologists and psychometricians, who explain how IQ is first culturally biased and don't measure the "objective intelligence" that many people believe. Intelligence is a lot more complicated than. Let's talk about epigenetics ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) well put in simple words it's when certain parts of genes are rearranged without changing the structure of genes in respect to your environment. (Like imagine gene like a bus in which there are three seats at the back and four seats at the front if we would exchange their position it wouldn't really affect the bus much but there would be a considerable change in the bus to its regular users.) This is the easiest explanation I could come up with at this time. So let's see its practical use as we already know that many 100s of genes affect intelligence. Imagine you're born into a hunter-gatherer tribe like the San Bushmen. Your environment constantly interacts with your genes, influencing how they're expressed. This is epigenetics in action. While you have genes for both spatial reasoning (great for navigating the wilderness) and mathematical ability, epigenetics might favor the former. Your daily life – tracking animals, and identifying edible plants – strengthens the neural pathways related to spatial skills. This doesn't mean your math genes disappear, but their expression might be dampened. Now, consider someone born in a modern, industrialized society. Their environment would likely favor the use of different genes. Regular exposure to numbers, problem-solving, and abstract concepts could strengthen neural pathways related to math skills. Epigenetics wouldn't erase their survival or spatial reasoning/awareness genes, but their expression might be less pronounced. But if members of the San tribe were to integrate into an industrialized society for several generations, their descendants would show a gradual shift in gene expression. The environment would continue to favor skills like math, potentially leading to a slight increase in the expression of those genes, while damping the genes for spatial reasoning/awareness.
Here's the main point: epigenetics doesn't rewrite your genes, but it can influence how well-equipped you are to handle your environment. It's an interplay between your genes, your environment, and your experiences. We know almost everyone has genes for intelligence but due to the environment, spatial intelligence genes are preferred or mathematical intelligence genes are preferred.
Methodology
The mean IQ of 185 countries, measured and estimated in Lynn and Vanhanen[1], were taken as the invariant IQ of each country over the 1950–2050 time period. (The figures are given in terms of countries existing as of the year 2000. For countries which came into being in the preceding 50 years due to decolonisation, breakup of the Soviet Union, etc., years prior to independence refer to the territory with borders identical to the present-day country. The list of countries includes Hong Kong and Taiwan, considered in some sense provinces of China, but with large populations, well measured demographically, and economic performance distinctly different from that of the People's Republic; and Puerto Rico, a United States territory with different demographics than the parent country. The remaining 182 countries include all independent countries with populations greater than 50,000 with the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for which no data were available due to the conflict throughout most of the 1990s.)The 100 year population history and forecast for the 185 countries with measured or estimated mean IQ was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau International Data Base 2003[3], using the mid-year population estimate or projection for each year.
For each year in the hundred year period, each country's estimated population for that year was apportioned into bins of 5 IQ points using a normal distribution with the mean IQ for the country from Lynn and Vanhanen and the 15 point standard deviation defined for IQ scores. These country histogram bins were summed to create a global histogram for each year. Global mean IQ was computed by an average of country IQs weighted by their population.
Lynn and Vanhanen only actually have IQ data for 81 countries and they've estimated the rest. How reliable are those estimates?
In most cases their estimates were made by averaging known IQs of adjacent countries with similar demographic mix. In the few cases of countries with ethnically diverse populations, they estimated IQ based on a weighted average of IQs of the country of origin of each group. They tested this process by using it to estimate IQ of several countries with known IQ and the results correspond well with the measured IQs of those countries. Still, one should bear in mind that 56% of the country IQ figures are estimated, and not based on any actual in-country measurement at all.
And those 81 countries they have IQ data for—there seem to be an awful lot of fudge factors used in computing the numbers they cite in the tables. How trustworthy are they?
Fudge factors? Indeed…more than 25 pages are devoted to explaining the “adjustments”, “corrections”, “calibrations”, and “weightings” which go into that table of 81 numbers. The state of the raw data is more or less hideous. There is no regular, standardised measurement of IQ in nations of the world. One is forced to use sporadic studies, published at widely spaced intervals, using a variety of tests with more or less cultural bias, on populations which may exhibit a variety of selection effects. (For example, if you only test high school children in a country where 75% of children do not attend high school, you can't expect your results to be representative of the population as a whole.) Still, if you want to do this research, you have work with the data at hand.
If population mean IQ indeed correlates strongly with economic performance, then measuring IQ figures for developing countries and studying ways to increase IQ could play an important rôle in development assistance. A UNESCO program to regularly measure IQ of, say, 16 year olds in all countries could provide hard data and, potentially, by permitting assessment of the effectiveness of programs such as nutrition aid for mothers and infants, educational initiatives, etc., do a world of good. Alas, this entire topic is so politically radioactive there is little likelihood of this ever happening.
Won't the Flynn effect compensate for the downward demographic shift in IQ?
The Flynn effect is an undisputed yet enigmatic aspect of IQ testing. Shortly after the first IQ tests were standardised, it was observed that the scores of those taking them tended to rise from year to year, as much as 15 points (one standard deviation) per generation. To maintain a mean score of 100 for the population on which IQ tests were standardised, test makers were forced to make their tests increasingly difficult over the years. In other words, to get the same IQ score as your father, you must perform equally well on a substantially tougher test than he took.
If, for whatever reason, everybody were getting smarter, this would be wonderful news indeed. But a glance at the numbers shows that something very curious must be going on here. If IQ were, in fact, rising at a rate of 15 points per generation then, if the mean IQ of today is 100, that of our grandparents' generation would have been about 70—generally considered the threshold of mental retardation. Clearly, anybody who's spent time with their grandparents and other folks of that generation knows that's utter nonsense.
The literature and music of a century or more ago is clearly not the work of marginally retarded minds, and its abundance indicates those who wrote it were not rare exceptions in a generally dull population. Consider genius in the past. Most people considered geniuses have IQs in the vicinity of 150, or 3 1/3 standard deviations above the mean IQ of 100. In a population with a mean IQ of 100, individuals with IQs of 150 occur with a frequency of about one in 2300 people—they're rare, but every medium-sized town has one or more, and even a small country with a population of one million has more than 425 such geniuses.
Now, in a population with a mean IQ of 70, which naïve interpretation of the Flynn effect would deem our grandparents to have had, genius-level IQs of 150 would be 5 1/3 standard deviations above the mean and occur, on average, in only one out of 20,396,324 people. If we take the Flynn effect as 3 IQ points per decade, then we'd expect a mean IQ of 70 around the year 1900. In 1900, the world population was about 1.7 thousand million, which would imply there were only 80 people with genius-level IQs in the entire world of 1900. The merest glance at the history of that era will reveal how ridiculous a supposition this is.
Adults, whatever their opinion may be of “what's the matter with kids today”, are most unlikely to cite “they're just too doggone smart!” So, the Flynn effect is a conundrum: a wide variety of tests which agree with one another and reliably predict outcomes we identify with “intelligence” all indicate that the general population is becoming more intelligent at an almost dizzying rate, while other evidence for this (for example, individuals with Einstein-calibre intelligence being almost 10,000 times more common than a hundred years ago) is notably absent. There is no shortage of hypotheses for what's going on, but little evidence to support any of them. Flynn himself believes that IQ tests measure test-taking and problem-solving ability, not genuine intelligence, and that this has risen over time as more and more children receive compulsory education and are subjected to ever more tests. Improved nutrition over the 20th century is often cited as a factor, as well as the introduction of egalitarian welfare state systems in developed countries tending to reduce poverty. But all of these are factors which one would expect to eventually reach a plateau, and that doesn't seem to have happened, at least so far.
This isn't a document about the Flynn effect (although it risks becoming one unless I wind this up rather soon), and since no solution to this long-standing puzzle is at hand, one can only speculate on what it really means. Since correction for the Flynn effect is substantial in Lynn and Vanhanen's national IQ estimates, and can be expected to strongly influence IQ scores published in the future, it is essential one bear it in mind in any analysis of population intelligence trends.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, we can easily say that the IQ gap between races isn't genetic but it depends upon socioeconomic conditions, environmental factors, and cultural biases of IQ tests. And all the research that has said otherwise is surprisingly funded by the pioneer fund and has a minority of scientists on their payroll who say that. In contrast, the majority of scientists disagree with race and IQ bullshit. Most humans with good environmental conditions have an IQ between 85-100.
And I didn't go into way more details, and nitty gritties of it. But this is enough evidence to convince someone who thinks rationally and not with his little SFcel feelings.
Retards should avoid entering and writing DNR.
Credits: @rope infinity on .is, added 2 other arguments and deleted the GDP per capita because too long and poorly relevant compared to the rest, and corrected some things
dang it