I am going to give you a quick example
>Humans are VERY SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER BIOLOGICALLY THE SAME, THE ONLY THING IT CHANGES ARE SOME COMBINATION OF GENES LITERALLY 99,9% EQUAL
Then you have two different environments, will describe both of them to you:
>One is less likely to have a male parental figure, and of those who have it are more likely to be extremely bad
>Had his ancestors been though hell in all levels of society
>People are less empathetically
>People are more violent
>Society expects very little of you
Therefore, even if a person has the right "combination of genes" to be smart and think far ahead, so you think they are going activate these? or the live quickly, reproduce and be violent?
In evolutionary terms it has more advantages being the last one, donĀ“t you think? why do you think the "modern thinkers" turn into little bitches in the hood?
And then you have the other one:
>People have more structure, to the way they eat, to time to go to bed, even in schools
>Society expects great things of you
>you are raised hearing stories of how your ancestry did a lot of shit
>People who are violent get instantly shuttled down, so you all learn this is a very bad behavior
>You have a culture of people pleasing(why? because it offers more advantage in the long term, which ironically kind does not work but whatever)
If the person on this environment has the right combination of genes to be the greatest warrior ever, do you think they will be Activate? or instead he will learn how to think more far ahead, have empathy, and all that shit?
Like this guy said, IQ relates more to wealth then anything else. Sweden couples who adopt people from different countries, the children will very likely have the same IQ of their partners of school, then anything else.