>>13634677>Are there any legitimate refutations?IQ is a test to detect mental retardation in children.
The number correlates with some positive traits in western societies, but this could easily be influenced by western societies prioritizing tasks that are congruent with what is required in IQ tests.
The concept of race is not as useful as it was in the past because the area of Genetics has developed and noticed there is a larger variation among what we call races, than what our intuition would tell us. The concept of ethnicity became more prominent.
IQ in this kind of context is also almost always used as some kind of half-baked eugenics kind of basis, but it's really just an over simplification. I forget the name of the researcher, but there's that guy that tried to show IQ is the most relevant thing for personal success and followed students over 50 years or something, only to find that the highest IQ ones ended up often in mediocre lives, and the rich kids were the ones that got the best outcomes.
Financial advantages in early life are repeatedly found to influence desirable financial outcomes later in life all over literature.
The fact that you have to repost this weak bait about 3 times a week for the past 3 years is also indirect anecdotal evidence that this retardation doesn't stand on its own. You will ignore every time you get refuted, pretend it didn't happen, and continue to spout the same shit.
