It is not my interpretation, it is based upon numerous studies, and you said you agreed with it until I explained what it actually meant to you.
So if you made it an average black kid instead of a white kid then of the 20 IQ point difference 12 points would be due to environment and 8 points would be genetic. If you raised that kid in an “Asian” environment his IQ would be 102 (higher than average), while if you somehow gave him Asian genetics his IQ would only be 98 (slightly below average).
Height distribution is also bell shaped not linear. The distribution of almost any quantifiable trait is bell shaped not linear. This has nothing to do with if it has a genetic or environmental cause or causes.
We agree, I think, that it is in every kid's interest to try his best, to learn as much as he can, to achieve whatever he can. Averages are not relevant to him. They're of interest only in determining social policy.
Social policy must recognize that significant differences in IQ among racial groups are a fact of life for the foreseeable future. Therefore diversity goals must be adjusted; aiming for racial parity is unrealistic and unachievable.
Look at the distribution curve. Approximately 50% of the population will be within 10 points of the median, 68% within 15 points, 90-94% within 25 points.
That means about 55% of Jews and 50% of East Asians will have IQs above 110. The figure for blacks is 3-5%.
That 25 point difference in medians is 40% due to genes, 10% due to environmental factors which cannot be manipulated, and 50% due to environmental factors which, in theory, can be.
It's completely utopian to think that environmental factors can be equalized. Far more realistic is a goal of 25-50% equality...which means the black median IQ can be moved to the right - with lots of hard work - by 3-7 points to 88 to 92. Meaning only 8-13% of blacks will have an IQ above 110.
That's a social disaster.