The average IQ of North America and Europe is approximately 100.

More precisely, somewhere in the range 97-105, depending on the study.

> He’s implying the rest of the world are lower IQ.

He couldn't be implying that. The rest of the world would necessarily average to 100 for the average of the whole world to be 100, when North America and Europe averages 100.

It happens that the rest of the world varies wildly.

A country like United Arab Emirates has an average IQ of around 97, so similar.

And a country like Morocco has an average IQ of around 67. Average!

The average of middle eastern countries is around 85.

Several Asian countries pull up the average significantly.

China and South Korea are at around 104-107, depending on the study.

There are no actual studies that provide this kind of country-by-country data on average IQ, only Richard Lynn's fabricated data, which has become folkloric on the Internet.

> And a country like Morocco has an average IQ of around 67. Average!

I don't think that this claim is credible. It comes from Lynn & Becker, who also have Nepal's average IQ at 43,[1] which is in the range where someone with that IQ would be considered mentally disabled, with limited capacity for independent life. That cannot be reconciled with the employment rate in Nepal. And according to Lynn & Becker, the average person from Nepal, Liberia and Sierra Leone has an IQ that puts them in that category.

1. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-i...

The truth is that no study that would generate these numbers plausibly has ever been conducted. There is no country-by-country, apples-to-apples international IQ test database. IQ tests are a diagnostic measure, so if you're going out into the field looking for lots of test results, you're either drafting off large-scale psychometrics work done in and by wealthy countries, or you're pulling from mental and developmental health institutions where tests were administered to diagnose patients.

That's exactly what Lynn did: he has "good" IQ data generated for-purpose by the research communities in developed countries, and just uses IQ data from, essentially, mental health institutions elsewhere. He presents these data sets as apples-apples equivalent.

It gets worse: for what should be obvious reasons, there are lots of countries where it isn't easy to get any such data. Lynn doesn't try; instead, his team takes data from neighboring countries and extrapolates.

Thanks for clarifying that; I didn’t check my sources. For comparison, 81-85 IQ points is where the US disqualifies you four being unable to follow basic training. And 75 IQ points considers you mentally retarded. So for a country average to be way below the retard limit is unlikely.

The only thing he clearly stated is that he thinks the global average isn't 100. That could imply miscalibration depending on how you think the metric ought to work. He's also implied that he thinks the correlation between internet usage and high IQ is stronger the farther back you go.

Both of those things seem like fairly reasonable hypothesis to me. You are the one inserting race into it.

The blogger says that the average IQ in Europe and North America is 100 but that "the mean IQ of the world is a tad less than 90 today, and it's expected to fall to about 86 by 2050." So the blogger thinks that some races are much stupider than Europeans, and that if their share of the global population rises, average intelligence will fall. That sure sounds like he thinks this is a genetic difference and not poverty, disease, or lack of education.

The blogger cites a website which cites Richard Lynn for these 'facts'. So this is about race and IQ, quod erat demonstratum.

Differences in average IQ between countries is well established and not even controversial AFAIK. What they mean is debated. Their existence cannot really be debated at all.

IIRC it correlates very strongly with socioeconomic factors, at least within the US. That doesn't make it useless but it does raise an awful lot of questions.

The direction of causation between IQ and economic success is pretty difficult because they obviously drive each other.

> So the blogger thinks that some races ...

You are misrepresenting the author. He made no such claim. He did not articulate what he believes the underlying mechanism to be.

It would be perfectly reasonable to inquire about the mechanism, or question the accuracy of the prediction. It is not reasonable to make accusatory conjectures about his beliefs.

The blogger is repeating (with citation) a claim by Richard Lynn, and by the end of his life Richard Lynn was open about being a 'scientific' racist who believed that different races had genes which caused large differences in average intelligence