China= 1.25 Billion Japan= 0.125 Billion India= 1.X Billion The use of race as a proxy for uniform genetic variation is silly. It follows (awkwardly) you can

China= 1.25 Billion Japan= 0.125 Billion India= 1.X Billion The use of race as a proxy for uniform genetic variation is silly. It follows (awkwardly) you cannot reject the hypothesis that genetics are determinate, by rejecting analysis on race-based data. But that is only the tip of the iceberg of problems here. There is a logical problem and a data problem. The data problem is that race is not a proxy for genetic variation, per-se (mixed data). The logic problem is that rejecting race as a hypothetical causal relationship does not reject genetic variable (by proxy, since proxy=false). Furtermore, rejecting the alternative hypothesis (ie, genetics) does not default to a single variable solution (ie Envronment or Genetics is origin). You cannot reject the hypothesis that they BOTH are important. Logically, they are not binary, per observation. The takeaway is that the headline is a problem. Reducing Environment to a one of many simultaneous causal factors trivializes it. Rejecting genetic determinants as having significant explanatory power is counter-thetical to Evolution. This is an orthogonal point, but its important. The Environment being "origin" implies that mate selection is irrelevant to inherited/expressed/realized intelligence. Which is clearly false. As a observed or as a logical matter. Think of a car engine. Every manufacturer will have defects (manufacturing tolerances). And poor maintenance will cause every engine to eventually fail (ie, dont change the oil). So, (1) design is not determinate of performance fully; and (2) environment can determine ultimate success/failure. It does not follow that all egines have the same layout for internal cumbustion. Nor does it follow that when working at full capacity/optimim tune they will have the same power output. Nor can we conclude anything about the suspension or the chassis performance, etc. But nor does it follow that ultimate performance (of the complex system) cannot still be competitive (at least in certain environments, etc). Cars of various design are competitive at road-rally, for example. While genetics is certainly not 100% explanatory, it simply is and must be a component in the "origin of intelligence". Unless you are a crazy-tea-party-sceptic-of-evolution.[sic]. So, this is problem for the intelligensia/left if they want to divorce inherited/genetics from the disucussion. The problem is the level of abstaction. We know genetics matters by species. We know genetics matters by (nuclear) family. What are the in-between levels (if any) that also matter? That is where things get murky and messy (politically, logically, and otherwise). At some stage, this might also be analysed of as a question of entropy. ie, if two smart people get married and their kids are x/n likelt to be smart, at what stage in replication do they revert to x/n= population average. If ever? What if their is persistent top-quartile genetic pairings (ie, adding selective-diversity, etc). What if their is a random sample from the population? Are the two vcases the same or different? how do you tell/test? etc. None of which should give cover for thinking without due clarity, however.