I am reading the refereed article and am 1/3 into it (20 pages of 60). This particular article reviews studies of mean IQ difference across race but not gender. One of the three unrefereed articles claims that there is a gender effect, but it did not cite a source and I haven't yet looked into it.
For race, the refereed article looks at two competing views: nature+nurture versus nurture-only. "Nature-only" isn't in the competition; everyone agrees that nurture plays a role. The question is whether nature (genetics) plays a significant role (say 50%) or no role (0%) the Black/White difference.
All of the studies reviewed by the survey article allow for nurture (parenting style, nutrition, etc.) For example, just now I was reading about how a study looked at adopted children who were all half Black and were adopted and raised by two White parents, some of whom thought mistakenly that their adopted child's biological parents were both Black. No statistically significant difference in IQ outcomes was found, which was interpreted as evidence that lower parenting expectations (the child is 100% Black so he's going to be a dumb-ass no matter what we do) does not explain the lower IQ outcomes.
My guess is that you are going to find articles and researches that contradict each other. In the question of Nature+Nurture or Nature only - I feel that nurture can change but Nature is stronger - I would say 70% - 30% for nature. This is from my own experience. However it means that there are still 30% that can make a big different. Very interesting topic.
This topic might become the focus of my blogging for a while. I see a variety of benefits from exploring this, ranging from developing tolerance for speech to exposing how saturated our thinking is by government propoganda to what-if policy questions. If what is being suggested is true, it also means that white males are the true oppressed group, which is shocking! Basically, if the hypothesis is true, it will overturn the world view that dominates Western culture, and who knows where that would lead.
BTW, your idea that nature (genetics, not environment) is 70% responsible for sub-Sahara African IQ being around 80 (which is very low) would be viewed as racist by the PC crowd. The counterclaim is that it's all environment; genetics plays no role.
I don't really see how you got to your first conclusions - "white men true oppressed group". Even if it is true that western white man statistically have higher IQ than the rest of the groups, we are going back to what is IQ - do you believe that people it higher IQ are better than other people? what about all the other intelligence? Also why do we need someone to be the dominate? and if anyone is still dominating the world right now, financially and in other ways - it is the western white men! oppressed ?? sorry, I really lost you on this one..
As for the second part - I am pro freedom of speech (I am the one who used to go out with Danny Shine.. I am not afraid of being not politically correct. However don't forget that my 70/30 assumption is based only on my experience as a western white women with white children (not my own), comparing to other white children.
Interesting about Danny Shine. Public nuisance is also what government is using against me. My argument is that the First Amendment does not permit the kind of discretion that a police officer, a district attorney, and a judge must exercise to decide whether particular facts constitute a public offense. My attack says that acts that are inseparable from speech content or speech method cannot be subjected to public nuisance legal process. (Your speech rights in the UK differ; I'd be interested in how Shine's prosecution turned out.)
White men are arguably oppressed both in opportunities and in outcomes. If race does influence IQ and IQ is correlated with job performance, employers should be able to consider race in deciding pay and promotions. Prohibiting employers from doing so discriminates against Whites and favors Blacks.
If you read the scientific articles that I am reading, you will find that the scientists consider all of your points and many others. The debate has been vigorous and thorough. I'm just beginning to read, but what already appears clear to me is that it is a one sided debate, with one side pressing for acceptance of an undeniable but unpleasant truth, and the other side desperately grasping at straws to find some basis for denying that truth. IOW, the quality of the scientific research and reasoning is solid on one side of the debate and mediocre on the other.
I am not a racist. But if this research turns out to be persuasive, I might become one.
The sentence "I am not a racist but.." is quite enough for me to say something about you. Saying that one race is better than other, is exactly what Nazi German believed. and you know were that led to...
I'm going back to what I wrote - you assume that IQ relates to job performance - what do you mean? Doesn't it depends on the job? Different jobs needs different kind of intelligence. Also I have to ask you - are you looking to research something just because the results might benefit you personally as a white man?
Please give me the benefit of doubt regarding my motives. I've spent eight years using myself as "sting bait" by speaking civic viewpoints that I think are true but that are not permitted to be spoken here. In any forum, if it appears that the expression of certain topics or certain opinions is not permitted, then the first thing that must be done is to boldly speak those prohibited opinions on those prohibited topics. Once the forum is censored, it becomes worthless as a forum.
My first order of business for as long as God gives me to be on steemit will be to verify daily that censorship has not sprouted on this forum.
What if one race really is "better" than another? Which is more dangerous, to deny such a truth or to confront it squarely and then make informed policy decisions? Current scientific evidence appears to show that the Nazis were right. Does that mean that we should follow their political path? Probably not.
Again, I've spent my whole adult life working for "liberty and justice for all" and in particular I have spent my life fighting against racism in the United States. My values haven't changed. But I appear to have been misinformed regarding some important, world-view changing facts.
Regarding whether measured IQ is useful in ranking people, that issue is discussed exhaustively in the scientific literature. The short answer is that the issue is a red herring.
I can understand if you say one culture is better than other for you. For me the culture that will support freedom of speech, co operation, community, non violent, equal opportunities for all - will be a better culture than a culture that support violence, fanatic religion, separation and hate of others etc'. But - I would like to live in a world where I choose which community to live in. I based on what is best for me. I don't see IQ as something that important that I will define people by and decide who is better who is not. I will decide who is better human being by being the best human being - the one who live to support others and follow love and not ego and fear. This is the most important thing and not IQ. You can have the highest IQ and be a psychopath, so?
I don't understand why you put so much emphases on it, sorry. Would you like to live in a society if only people with high IQ, or a society that respect each other and support each other?