(on race and IQ) … Flynn, Lynn, Vanen, and as far as I know the vast majority

(on race and IQ)

…

Flynn, Lynn, Vanen, and as far as I know the vast majority of specilists agree with the difference in racial distributions.

What is not obvious is simply the consequence of size of the bottom of the distributions. Meaning, that whites and east asians, because of climate, agriculture, and government, have literally killed off large portions of the underclasses for more than one thousand years, and in both societies used reverse redistribution to increase rates of reproduction in their upper middle, and upper classes.

As far as I know, the difference between the races is largely a function of the rates of reproduction of the classes. This heavily affected by the difference between the burden of particularist thought (memory) and the advantage of generalist thought (general theories), plus the increase provided by education and nutrition.

However, the deltas between the racial distributions raised universally across all races maintaining the relative centers of the distributions.

Futhermore, ashkenazis, whites, and east asians, have succeeded in selective breeding for pedomorphism producing much lower testosterone levels, and much lower impulsivity and aggression than the warmer(temperate) and more competitive (africa) regions. So much so that this appears to be a reproductive problem for east asians in modernity. (impulsivity and lower intelligence in the absence of subsistence pressures produce higher rates of reproduction, while lack of impulsivity and higher intelligence produce lower rates of reproduction.)

So as far as I know (and I am pretty completely informed), the issue remains not one of necessarily material differences (although there are some) but largely a matter of the size of the underclasses in the relative groups, and the degree of ‘domestication’ through pedomorphic reproduction that has been possible in the territory of racial occupation.