I hesitate to engage with this issue for fear of amplifying it, but @EPoe187 isn't a troll-bot with 5 followers, and I teach about intelligence & IQ in undergrad courses. So, in that educational spirit, a VERY brief argument/thread. (1/few)
(2) If u believe the best estimates of mean IQ scores from sub-Saharan African countries are 65-85, then you also must believe either: (a) most sub-Saharan Africans are classifiable as intellectually disabled, or (b) IQ scores don't mean/measure the same things across cultures.
(3) It's the same issue faced by those seeking to explain Flynn effects. If you extrapolate secular trends back to even the late 1800s, virtually all Western populations would be classifiable as intellectually disabled by current standards.
(4) Regarding secular trends, we know this is absurd, and so Flynn, for example, has argued that IQ tests measure a kind of abstract thinking that modern/Western children are now taught from an early age. We're all willing/able to play the abstraction "game" required by IQ tests.
(5) So, at a given time within a given culture, IQ test scores can tell you something somewhat sensible about how people on relatively similar cultural footing differ in some of their intellectual strengths & weaknesses. BUT...
(6/fin) comparing across distant cultures is as fraught as is comparing across distant times. Without MUCH more (any?) compelling evidence of equiv VALIDITY across all cultures, I believe it is irresponsible to claim or assume that cross-cultural IQ diffs = *intelligence* diffs.
