Statistically, at least last I checked, that statement is absolutely correct.

The reasons for which is a matter of some debate, but the fact will resist any and all efforts to change it by way of insulting its speaker.

Were it someone relating this in a less analytical way, that sentence would read "People with higher IQs are not necessarily 'superior'". Which is also true, as it happens.

Yep it is statistically correct.

For anyone interested in the potential reasons: one of the most posited ones is that the creators of the tests are inherently biased. i.e. if someone creating an IQ test is a white male, chances are white males will have an advantage on the test.

This has some degree of experimental evidence behind it, I remember in one of my psych classes we learned about a study where test creators tried to create tests [and succeeded] where certain races or locales would score higher [primarily by having people in those places or people of that race create the tests]. It's very hard to create a "general intelligence" test that isn't biased in some fashion [and many say it's impossible]

> if someone creating an IQ test is a white male, chances are white males will have an advantage on the test

But why and how would white males consistently create culturally biased tests which advantage East Asians?

> It's very hard to create a "general intelligence" test that isn't biased in some fashion [and many say it's impossible]

Tests of reaction time are probably not culturally biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry#Mental_chro...