3cKU

It does seem the obvious place to start looking, and the only surprise is that it took so long.

At least you'll admit that your ideas are extreme. That false equivalence does nothing to rebut the bell curve.

Inbreeding in small populations (your first two links) is not relevant, and your third link is a false equivalence.

No. The first part of that quote is consistent with any hypothesis (G only, E only, G&E), i.e. cannot distinguish between them.

Access to schooling etc can't be the whole story: "black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families".

"the states with the lowest gini co-efficient are the ones that are the least diverse" seems a better fit.

> white people who think ...

Your link says "high-ability whites are less likely than low-ability whites to report ..."

Raven's Progressive Matrices is often administered. Is that test culturally biased? Does that test measure only ability to take that test and nothing else?

> And how are you able to rule out

It is not possible to rule out unfalsifiable hypotheses.

There are several premises:

1. CMU needs immigration to remain a top school.

2. His children will be in the top 1% of 1% of 1% to qualify for top schools.

3. His children will move away if CMU does not remain a top school...

4. and that would be bad, so bad that it justifies perpetual rent stress for 100 million Americans, an actual impact of immigration.

> The right thinks there is a cultural problem to be solved.

That's also the left. The right holds the differences are genetic, not likely to change, and the only problem to solve is how to keep them out of the country.