Replies

“But most “races” average out to about 100, plus or minus a few.”

Not according to Herrnstein and Murray. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

“And many groups have experienced steady increases in IQ over many years, suggesting there’s more to it than just genetics.”

What it suggests to me is that the people who have been saying since the 1970s that IQ tests are racially biased have made progress in biasing them toward blacks.

dsc: "Not according to Herrnstein and Murray. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve"...
...people who have been saying since the 1970s that IQ tests are racially biased have made progress in biasing them toward blacks.

You may be missing my point here, and getting some ideas backwards.
I had to read a long ways before getting to Murray's bottom-line: IQ is about 60% genetics, 40% environment and blacks average 15 points lower on IQ scores.

So, looking at those same numbers, I think we can say:

Within any population (or "race"), IQs vary from under 80 to over 150.
That's a difference of 70 points, and it is reflective of great differences in many capabilities such as mechanical aptitude, math skills, music, personal interactions, etc., etc.
Between different populations ("races"), average IQs vary by only 15 points, meaning that, regardless of which "race" you study, they all include wide ranges in various skill levels.
The fact that all IQs have increased steadily from generation to generation suggests the environmental 40% of IQ can have significant effects.
Finally, your concern that we are now dumbing-down children with political correctness is doubtless legitimate.
But I've not yet seen numbers verifying it.

Bottom line: the 40% of IQ which is not genetically predetermined is certainly enough, given good education, to raise up an "average" child to well above average or, correspondingly, reduce a potential genius to failure under the wrong circumstances.

Do you disagree?