Question:<br>Does this presenter base his premises on international studies of the subject or only US studies?<br>It seems that latter is the case but the question remains.<br><br>Thank you.,(reply>), @Peter Lund Look, there are two separate questions. One is, how is IQ related to genetics. We don't know exactly, we know it's somehow connected. The second question is, how is genetics connected to what we call races (from the US point of view): Blacks, Caucasians, Asians, Middle Easterners, Jews. For the second, we know the answer. Races o not even loosely correlate with actual genetic differences. Not that there are no differences, but they do not go along with the races based on superficial traits. That's what the human genome project found out. So the debate has the  wrong premise altogether. Since we now know, that races are not based in genetics, how d we explain differences measured in IQ in between races? You got it. Sociologically, as anyone with common sense understands. But I get it. It's tempting. To believe to be something special, something better, as a tribe. People have done this forever. It has never been true.,(reply>), @Peter Lund "The Lothian birth-cohort studies are two ongoing cohort studies which primarily involve research into how childhood intelligence relates to intelligence and health in old age." That has nothing to do with genetics in race. It does not add anything to the debate of nature vs nurture, either. It simply points out what we all knew. That the early childhood days are the most important of a human beings' development.,(reply>), @aexesia you really should read that book by Plomin somebody else recommend to you…,(reply>), He <b>clearly</b> opened by talking about a Scottish long-term study!<br>It’s called “the Lothian birth-cohort study”.,(reply>), He does not base his premises on studies at all when it comes to IQ differences in race due to genetics. Because there are no studies that show anything like it.