Wanderlust,
Have you at least bothered to take a look at Daivde Piffer's data that I linked before?
It is actually
quite optimistic - at least for Africa, India, Latin America and Vietnam:
https://s18.postimg.org/4kaqg7ik9/Piffer_Graph.png
https://s12.postimg.org/8v77d7wnh/Piffer_Table.png
at a population level, they are explained entirely by environmental factors
It is a ridiculous claim. Frequencies of alleles correlated with intelligence differ between populations.
However, environmental factors are dumbing down some populations, as Piffer's data above shows.
But as you can see, African-Americans in the USA are
not one of these disadvantaged populations.
The richest and most powerful countries on the planet (Qatar, UAE, the USA, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, France, Sweden, Australia, etc...) are all diverse, inclusive nations.
They became rich and powerful several decades ago, when they were still ethnically homogeneous.
Only recently they are becoming diverse, and this is because rich countries are immigration and welfare magnets.
But your country is
not rich thanks to immigrants - it was made rich by White Swedes, before 1970.
The gap between black American and White American IQs is ever closing as they are being exposed to greater education and higher standards of living. Early in the 20th century Ashkenazi Jewish IQs in the US were below average; not they are above average. In the 1960s Asian American IQs were below average, now they are above average.
Sources, please.
2.) Moreover, they tend not to take into consideration the language, socioeconomic, cultural and personality differences that can lead to the underestimation of one's actual intelligence. These factors make IQ tests imperfect predictors of one's potential.
There exist also culturally neutral IQ tests, AFAIK.
Notwithstanding the fact that there are people with high IQs who do absolutely nothing with their lives and then there are those with lower IQs who become quite successful.
Of course - did I ever claim that it is not the case ???
That said, having a high IQ is surely an advantage.
1.) not encompass the full breadth of one's intelligence, which involves more than reading comprehension skills or math, and usually ignores creativity, spacial, social and auditory intelligence.
AFAIK, IQ tests measure the "general intelligence" (so called "g" factor), which is defined as:
"The ability to perceive, comprehend, and reason" (and AFAIK this includes things such as: short-term memory, learning speed, the ability to embrace a given subject, to process and understand information, to think flexibly and solve problems, to imagine objects in space and think about their position in relation to each other, as well as mathematical skills).
So spacial-visual intelligence is being measured by IQ tests as well, I think. Not sure about auditory intelligence.
As for social and emotional intelligence - it is something different, and EQ tests measure it.
How do you want to measure creativity ???