> Ethnicity and IQ relationship is mainstream psychology.

Care to substantiate that claim?

Wow... Hard-core racism, here on HN? And connecting 'accomplishments of races' with modern day policing practices...

Are you even aware of the influence of black people on ancient history? Of the black Roman emperors? Of the black Egyptian Empire, one that was looked at in awe for 5 thousand years?

Are you aware of the inspiration the founding fathers took from the Hodenoshone (Iroquois)?

And in general, are you even slightly aware of how much circumstance and happenstance impact big historical moments?

Either way, you are a perfect example of the kinds of people who invented IQ, and exactly the reasons why it was invented - scientistic veneer to justify racist beliefs, not much better than phrenology before it.

And I sincerely hope you'll get to experience how the kind of policing you praise feels on you own skin. It will hurt, but perhaps it will help you grow as a human being.

Edit: the above comment was heavily edited after my response, removing everything except a link to 1 study.

A published study doesn't make the theory mainstream. This study is heavily criticised in the field, for p-hacking amongst other things. Also their conclusion is about IQ, which itself isn't seen in the mainstream as an indication of general intelligence, so they're really reaching from the get go. You have to have a serious agenda to read this paper and sincerely think the conclusion correct...

Thank you for existing, here's a totally unrelated comment for you

https://mangadex.org/chapter/97419/7

Does anybody know how to downvote/flag in hackernews?

Not sure about flagging, but downvoting becomes available only after you have 1000 karma (and you can't down vote replies to your own comments).

Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

Sure, one of the least reliable fields of science mostly believes this effect exists. They also have one of the worse reproducibility crises, and a history of fraudulent but widely believed studies (Stanford Prison Experiment, to name just one), and entire schools of thought defeated by a priori arguments (behaviorism as a theory of the human mind).

Meanwhile you ahbe neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists arguing against the plausibility of differences in intelligence in large ancient groups a priori. You have people like Stephen Jay Gould arguing against the idea that IQ is a measure of general intelligence at all.

And then, just to prove a point about how warped your perspective is, you cite James Damore as an argument for a basic statistical fact. You really should avoid citing beligerantly misogynistic and/or racist people when you're trying to claim that science is on your side.

Not to mention that large scale aptitude tests (rather than 'general intelligence' tests) do NOT show a normal distribution of aptitudes, rendering Damore's claims statically correct but un applicable anyway.