Genetic differences explain racial IQ gaps

Defense of the racial categoryNo one and precise definition was provided in the studies cited. They relied on subjects self-identifying their ethnicity, which was then shown to correspond with actual genetic ancestry and cluster virtually all of the time. This shows that racial concepts, as popularly held by people, do in fact help to identify genetically distinct populations. While this may not be true of formalized racial definitions, it should be noted that such aren't particularly popular outside of academia.Feral childrenCon argues that feral children - children who have lived apart from other humans for most of their development - do not "naturally develop IQ".The first problem with this argument is that IQ is not a trait that has to be developed. IQ is a metric made to evaluate a trait (intelligence/cognitive capacity/g).Feral children can and have [1] performed IQ tests either way. They tend to score lower than average (at least initially, depending on age), likely due to factors such as poor nutrition. Animals can be tested for IQ too - even though most have no culture to speak of, let alone one that could influence their results.Asian languages and mathematical abilityIn response to the high performance of Northeast Asians relative to other populations, Con argues that this is due to the structure of their language. Not an inherent characteristic.Of course, it's very easy to test this claim. By looking at the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test results [2], separated by race and nationality, we can determine whether academic performance is tied more closely to the genetic population, or to language.Note that even though Asian Americans do not speak Northeast Asian languages at nearly the same rate as those in Asia [3], they perform about as well as the international Asian average. It should be noted that certain populations (such as Ashkenazi Jews), which do not commonly speak NE Asian languages, regularly ouperform Asians in mathematics.Culture and IQFinally, Con states that culture is ultimately what explains IQ and the gaps, not inheritance. For one example, he cites the amount of hours worked by the Chinese as evidence of their hardworking culture. However, industriousness has virtually no connection with IQ [5].To more diretly examine Con's theory, we can look at populations that are culturally exchangeable but genetically distinct. For example, Ashkenazi as opposed to Shepardi Jews. http://www.youtube.com...Despite sharing a studious Jewish culture, the Ashkenazi score, on average, around 14 points higher than the Sephardi [4]. As a 2006 paper demonstrated [6], the genetic-origin model can explain these differences, given the Ashkenazi's particular history and selective pressures underwent in Europe.Either way, the cultural model simply cannot explain the IQ gaps. This is evidenced by the fact that IQ gaps are largest in the least culture-loaded (and most heritable) tests [7].Sources: 1] Curtiss, S., Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day “Wild Child” (New York: Academic Press, 1977), cited in F. E. Bloom & A. Lazerson, Brain, Mind, and Behavior (2nd ed.), (New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1985), 266-267.2] http://nces.ed.gov...3] https://cdn.americanprogress.org...4] http://www.academia.edu...5] https://stats.oecd.org...6] http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu...7] http://www.sciencedirect.com...