>IQ is not a good measure of “smartest”. It is racially biased, gender biased, and geographically biased. I'll disagree on that, IQ isn't biased, it's a unifor

>IQ is not a good measure of “smartest”. It is racially biased, gender biased, and geographically biased. I'll disagree on that, IQ isn't biased, it's a uniform test. Just because the outcome has a bias and you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. Geographical bias can be simply explained by different countries having different education and standard of living. Especially the amount of food you get during your childhood can affect brain development and thusly affect the IQ. Next point, the racial bias can be similar explained through a hidden variable; poverty. Especially in the US, people with low income have worse education and nutrient supply during childhood and have a certain demographic makeup which is a completely different problem in of itself. Lastly, the gender bias has been many times proven to be simple biology. You don't have to like it and it doesn't say anything about individuals but the chromosomes and genes you have are heavy first influencers on IQ and brain development. That doesn't mean women can't be as smart as men or men can't be as smart as women, quite opposite. This is simply a matter of distribution, which forms two bell curves with a slight offset. I've forgotten in which way they are offset but there is a clear difference in distribution. Again, just because the result is biased doesn't make the test wrong, it just means that the differences might be generated elsewhere, which in this case, they are. Some are fixable (support developing countries, better education, higher standard of living) some aren't.