You are all kinds of wrong. Geniuses (>165IQ) are rare enough that you can feasibly put in the effort to study them individually and in detail. Most people are

You are all kinds of wrong. Geniuses (>165IQ) are rare enough that you can feasibly put in the effort to study them individually and in detail. Most people are unlikely to have ever met a single one in person. It would be ridiculous to try to source general stats of geniuses from people you have met in person. Again you're not understanding conditional probability, the code I've been impressed by has a strong selection criteria bias as I'm only impressed by a very very tiny percentage of code that I've read, additionally I don't read every line of code written. This selection criteria is so strong that the fact that men in total write more code than women is almost completely irrelevant. A large part of science is dedicated to not finding obvious things out about IQ which is increasingly hard to do as statistical tooling and data has become widespread. Most academics are stuck with old data and tooling and a existential requirement to find only politically correct results. If you think DEI is bad then you should see the anti-racists pledges that must be made by academics for access to data. My findings are from a mountain of data and sophisticated tooling but unfortunately I can't make appeals to authority when posting anonymously.