Disregarding the problematic use of (1) "groups" solely defined as [race]; and (2) IQ as equivalent to [intelligence]; the <logical> extension of the analysis w

Disregarding the problematic use of (1) "groups" solely defined as [race]; and (2) IQ as equivalent to [intelligence]; the <logical> extension of the analysis with the words <in origin> as used in the title is specious. [#,$,!] ________ [#] ie. Logically ok would be Group differences in IQ are best understood as an [having an environmental component]. =edit= [$] Its logically possible (and most likely correct) that there are N dimensions to intelligence that are consistent in simultaneity (and while still excluding race). EG, including non-racial defined genetic group variation and environmental factors could both have measurable deterministic impacts on outcomes, of order of magnitude equivalent value. Its problematic to assert that the "origin" of [xyz] intelligence is an either/or hypothesis, when its most likely a complex composite. For obvious reasons. [!] Environmental impacts, once established, cannot then simutaneouly be assumed as a neutral error variable (ie, with vanilla-stochasitic distribution). Certainly not without micro-analytic support. The latter is not evident / nor consistent with (1) or (2). Nor the use of basketball analogies.