Richard Lynn is a revered authority in racist circles. That is problematic. It would be less problematic if he had evidence on his side. At most it's circumstantial without establishing cause and effect. I am not even sure if one can find a reliable study that established the IQ of people in Africa. It seems to me that IQ rises the wealthier a society becomes. That can explain the Flynn effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect.
The most I can see about IQ is it's a test of how well one is adjusted to fit and function in a western(modern) society. If you live in one culture, you will always suck in a test with emphasis on attributes that are valued in a different one. Africa has been exposed to the West, but Africans have never really embraced western culture. Even African Americans don't exist in the same culture.
A typical mzungu's skill levels are very basic things. They are mostly glorified clerks who exist in a favorable economic environment. They can barely think outside the box. If he does not have a set of well written instructions and protocol, you will get chaos. You can replace him with a well written shell script. That said, I admire how well they can follow a script.
Absolutely. I used to think you were a believer in this racist IQ stuff, glad to see I was projecting!
That said, one of the groups with the highest IQ on the planet, comparable only to Ashkenazi Jews and some Chinese groups, are the Ibos of Nigeria. Lots of them moved to the UK during the war and they have been astonishing people there ever since.
I believe in the IQ group differentials as long as we are clear which groups we are comparing. Why would one compare all blacks in one camp vs all whites just because they share one or a couple of traits whose only discernible significance is appearance for the most part? There are such vast differences among each of these groups on many other traits that it makes such groupings ridiculous from a scientific point of view. That's why many scientists reject the idea of race (based on colour and not geographic groups), not just because it's prejudiced but because there's no good scientific basis for such large groupings just because they share skin colour. More fundamental traits could be used to create very different groups, for example. Just because these traits are not readily seen like we see skin colour doesn't mean they are not much more fundamental. So yes, there are differences between geographical groups, some kind of adaptation, so you don't get to credit the Irish with traits of a group in Eastern Europe for example, and same thing in Africa.
You have identified the key issue as far as our structural struggles. Systems like the Western one are outputs of certain traditions that grow over a time in no discerned conscious way. The systems that prevailed in most of Africa were informal and predicated on small close-knit groups. To the extent that agriculture made the growth of larger and larger kingdoms possible, these systems became gradually more and more centralized, complex and rigid...more "law-like" or "state-like" in the sense we understand those terms in modernity (which is Western-derived).
Remember agriculture sprung in Sub-Saharan Africa much, much later than Europe or Asia. So all these centralizations and complex organization that start to develop with stabilized and larger groups due to agriculture were only at their early stages here in the last 1000 years or so (not counting the Egyptians with their Nile and connection to the rest of the world, of course, plus their derivatives in the Sudan). Africans are per for the course with the rest of humanity in terms of stages of economic evolutions over time.
It is the curse of the modern African that he must live at a time when reductionist thinking determines his nature re other humans by looking at this "evidence" of "intelligence" without caring about the noted patterns of the evolution of human society across time in response to economic changes. Hopefully, 200 years from now, thoughts like this will appear ignorant to anyone who studies our times, though not as ignorant as say, those that prevailed a few decades or centuries ago.
