RSSI think the casual dismissal of your arguments are generally pretty poor. I think the prevalence of high performing Nigerians is strong proof against a strong interpretation of the national IQ data for Nigeria. Similarly, the high performance of emigrant Indians in the west is proof against the national IQ data being a genotypic dictate. I think the case that the genotypic average for Nigeria is ~80 is far stronger than like 65, similarly my suspicion is that India is more ~90 than the 80 seen from national data. Importantly, if these gaps are environmental, subsets of the population that are less malnourished (or whatever is causing such depression) should be at or around their genotypic IQ. These subsets may even be selectively higher IQ for simple feedback reasons (high genotypic IQ means more money, which means you can afford to support your kids to live up to their higher than pop genotypic IQ)
I think with scabble, it’s worth pointing out that IQ-success correlations are almost never r = 0.8, they’re generally lower. given this paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593), which claims a r = 0.35 for IQ-chess correlations. Assuming that the IQ gap is ~1.33 std, the simulations I’ve done give a roughly 3:1 ratio of white:nigerian at +2 STD in scabble ability given equal populations. This is certainly disproportionate, but if scrabble is way more popular in nigeria this is plausible. Entirely possible I’ve gotten calcs wrong though. I think 155 IQ is a poor estimate though, that’s well above most conventional estimates of top level CEO IQs, and the only way I can see it being true is if IQ has a non-normal distribution, which makes the nigerian-white comparison confused.