Which is my exact point ... how is it the "dumb Americans" are the cultural dominant and have overtaken Europe in virtually every field of relevance? 

Success and IQ is not linear, from what I've found in actuality the most successful people are kind of borderline retarded at a lot of things. They excel due to an obsession (an almost simplification as it were) of focusing on being successful at one thing. 

How shocking! poverty stricken, war torn countries are at the bottom. While highly industrialized 1st world countries came out on top.

Again this doesn't prove that it's race. There are African emmigrants in those top countries that are doing just as well as their Asian/European counterparts.

How shocking! poverty stricken, war torn countries are at the bottom. While highly industrialized 1st world countries came out on top.

Again this doesn't prove that it's race. There are African emmigrants in those top countries that are doing just as well as their Asian/European counterparts.

Which is my exact point ... how is it the "dumb Americans" are the cultural dominant and have overtaken Europe in virtually every field of relevance? 

Success and IQ is not linear, from what I've found in actuality the most successful people are kind of borderline retarded at a lot of things. They excel due to an obsession (an almost simplification as it were) of focusing on being successful at one thing. 

How shocking! poverty stricken, war torn countries are at the bottom. While highly industrialized 1st world countries came out on top.

Again this doesn't prove that it's race. There are African emmigrants in those top countries that are doing just as well as their Asian/European counterparts.

There's no way you can possibly believe what you just said. If communists were really as powerful as you make us out to be, there'd already be no United States.

"We conclude with our own less elegant commentary regarding how these findings should be understood and the role of the environment in the shaping of human psychological traits. It is important to specify the populations to which any results can be generalized and not misinterpret what they mean. The samples were drawn almost exclusively from Western industrial democracies. These settings have characteristic environments. Only a few of the participants were raised in real poverty or by illiterate parents, and all study participants had access to the contemporary educational programs typical of those societies. This is the domain to which we can generalize. The results do not mean that environments are irrelevant or unimportant. The proximate causes of variance in IQ are the ‘cognitively stimulating experiences’ that the individual is provided with and seeks for him/herself. Early in life, those experiences are primarily imposed (or not imposed) on the individual and that shows up as shared environmental influence. As the individual becomes more of an independent agent, the effective experiences are to a large extent self-selected. As Martin et al. (1986) put it: ‘humans are exploring organisms whose innate abilities and predispositions help them select what is relevant and adaptive from the range of opportunities and stimuli presented in the environment. The effects of mobility and learning, therefore, augment rather than eradicate the effects of the genotype on behavior’ (p. 4368). This idea has been elaborated in some detail by Scarr (1996) who has argued that people make their own environments¹ and Bouchard (1996, 1997; Johnson, 2010a), who has elaborated the Experience Producing Drive Theory of Keith Hayes (1962)."

How does this prove anything? IQ does have a heriditary factor so? It also has to do with the Socioeconomic state, teaching and many other factors.