is hbd really that convincing?  the premise is mainly that different races have different iqs on average. and that iq is genetic. but how convincing are the arguments for this? the hbd argument relies on two things, that iq is a merging up concept that is constant within a person, and that there is a genetic difference between group. nathan cofnas a prominent hbd promoter has admitted that chess is not an activity that matters much for iq. an absurd idea that iq is not important for chess ability but the concession has to be made due to gery kasporavs measured iq being 130. well above average but kasporav is the longest reigning chess world champion of all time so its well below what would be expected. a critique to iq being genetic is that it can change over a persons life. for example ted kaczynski had his iq measured twice. once before he graduated college and once when he was incarcerated after being arrested. before his iq was in the 160s but then the second test had him at 130 or 120. this seems to give evidence that iq is very fluid for a person and things beyond genetics determine heavily what score you will get in an iq test. and lastly charles murrays who popularized race and iq has a new book which i believe was coming apart which measured black iq at 90 when in the past it was stated to be 84. and before that it was stated to be int the 70s. this seems more to imply that any differences in iq between races are not based on hard limits like genetics.
United States