[Mrs. Don-o]

I have a certain amount of skepticism about IQ as a stable criterion, since it tends to vary across the individual lifespan, and its measurement can be skewed by stress,hunger, individual temperament and cultural factors.

But even if the aggregate IQ figures are correct, brain scientists and educational researchers agree that nobody --- that's NOBODY --- actualizes their entire genetic intellectual potential.

That leads us to reasonably infer that everybody --- across the bell curve --- benefits from more early stimulation, enrichment, social interaction and educational development; and that other factors than IQ may prove more salient in contributing to personal achievement.

For instance, a diligent and clever typical-Somali will do better than a drugged out white skinned Britannic-American slacker.

IQ as a proxy for overall race superiority is, in my opinion, Bunk with a capital B.

[bgill]

I’ve seen it too many times with Nature vs Nurture, nature wins out. Yes, nurturing in a more stimulating environment can bring about the potential but there are still differences. Too many times, the individual doesn’t want the opportunity that’s given him or doesn’t care to excel or despite everything will doggedly go down the wrong path.

Colin Kaepernick is an example.

[CodeToad]

“IQ as a proxy for overall race superiority is, in my opinion, Bunk with a capital B. “

I agreed with you up that point, but when blacks are 65-85 average and whites are 105, there is a HUGE difference that translates into the results we see.