Bruh.
Froot loop. As in crazy person. How do you miss this shit, yet know an unjustifiable amount about racial history for a fucking coder?
Fair enough, wasn’t aware of that. Counter-point, if you actually read the wikipedia article you sent a snip of, you would have realised that in the very first paragraph, it says (and I quote)
“With the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century, differences in average test performance between racial groups were observed, though these differences have fluctuated and in many cases steadily decreased over time. Further complicating the issue, modern science has shown race to be a social construct rather than a biological reality, and intelligence has no undisputed definition. The validity of IQ testing as a metric for human intelligence is itself disputed. Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.”
So reguardless of peer review, what you posted was de-contextualised and thus misleading anyway.
There are some pretty big fuck-ups occasionally.
You didn’t nessecarily mention the japs, but you did say white people are superior to all others. Same thing.
You apparently didn’t read that properly either, because it says that in the 20th century (assumably around the 50s, when segregation was a thing and everyone was a member of the kkk) scholars ASSUMED that the black IQ was at a steady 85. If I have to explain to you why this invalidates your statement, then you’re basically single-handedly dragging down the mean intelligence of the human race below the supposed 85 IQ points black people had in the 50s.
Also just a little titbit of info for future discussions: When refering to an experiment or study, if you want to provide evidence for a claim and need to cite the source, do it with a journal article. They’re scientific reports specifically about a single study or topic, and both helps avoid things being taken out of context, as well as saving someone the time and effort of combing through an encyclopedia about diversity in childeren’s education that doesn’t really give an easily-found in-depth explaination of the actual methods of the study used to support claims. Every study will have its strengths and weaknesses, bar some which are complete hogwash, and seeing how these studies draw conclusions and gather data is integral to evaluating them.