Spartan

There's been studies which show ethnic groups in China differ substantially in average IQ scores. Yet, racialists will group them all together as "Mongoloid". Even looking at Lynn's papers shows some of these marked differences e.g. Daur differ in average IQ by 9 points to Han; Ewenki, by 11 points (Lynn & Cheng, 2013). The issue is less with the heritability of IQ, but that racialists adopt an obsolete typological classification of three races ("White" or "Caucasoid", "Yellow" or "Mongoloid", and "Black" and "Negroid") which forces diverse populations into the same category. If Lynn, Rushton etc., just did their research on ethnic groups without arbitrarily categorizing them into oids, no one would have a problem. Also: Darwin and Blumenbach never defined race as just "ancestry". Mikemikev has a tendency to lie.

I can't seem to post pictures (probably because i'm new), but the reason why racialism makes no sense with IQ is because if you take a look at any continent or large grouping of countries: you find they have considerably different average IQ scores. For example: Serbia, Albania and several other countries in south-east Europe have average IQ scores of 80-85. Scandinavia countries however are 100+, why should they be grouped together? Why should countries be grouped with others when there is up to a 20 point difference in IQ? This is why Rushton and Lynn's racial classification is pseudo-science: they group all European countries together as a "White race" when the peoples in this arbitrary racial group are heterogeneous, not homogenous - so it makes no sense to cluster them together.