>>20 "There can be no solely genetic causes for low IQ among any of the races because IQ (being an environmental test, intelligence being an abstract) isn't solely genetic."
I never said that the differences between races were SOLELY genetic. That's an example of a strawman. In fact, that statement was not even an appropriate reply to what I wrote. As for the other two claims, IQ as an environmental test, and IQ being an abstract, let me elaborate.
IQ as an abstract:
Not true. I've been over a thousand times how IQ is a measure of performance, and modern g-loaded tests (those given credit after about 1984) are accurate measures of intelligence, as well as how the correlate to later success in life. Pretty impressive for an abstract, eh?
IQ is an environmental test:
I've been over how american blacks, speaking english as their native language, still score lower than impoverished Chinese. What's the reason? Surely the test couldn't be too hard for the black kids to understand, what with it being originally written in english?
What's the reason?
There are obvious correlations. For example, why does the bell curve put latinos above blacks? They, for the most part (Around 75%) don't speak english as their native language, and they
definately don't have better education than black populations.