IQ fails as a measure of intelligence considering the results of its largest test: civilisational differences.
East Asians have IQs 5-8 points higher than Western Europeans (which makes a huge difference in general and at the extremes), and this is likely genetic as they have a higher frequency of IQ associated SNPs, yet Western Europeans have contributed 97% of all scientific accomplishments and are far more proficient in the humanities.
Despite the fact that there have always been far more East Asians, and that they had a civilisational headstart, they have been less wealthy (per person) for at least 2,000 years and achieved comparatively little.
How do people who claim that IQ is such a strong measure of intelligence reconcile the fact that the most populous race that also has the highest IQ (except Jews) has made so few scientific breakthroughs?
East Asians have IQs 5-8 points higher than Western Europeans (which makes a huge difference in general and at the extremes), and this is likely genetic as they have a higher frequency of IQ associated SNPs, yet Western Europeans have contributed 97% of all scientific accomplishments and are far more proficient in the humanities.
Despite the fact that there have always been far more East Asians, and that they had a civilisational headstart, they have been less wealthy (per person) for at least 2,000 years and achieved comparatively little.
How do people who claim that IQ is such a strong measure of intelligence reconcile the fact that the most populous race that also has the highest IQ (except Jews) has made so few scientific breakthroughs?
