Re: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/35-myths-debunked/, I’ve developed a heuristic.
“Insofar as there is something in life that IQ tests don’t measure well, straight white males will outperform what their IQ scores would predict and everyone else will perform worse than their IQ scores would predict.”
The monomyth is the idea behind every claim that IQ is a myth: there is something that isn’t being measured that will make straight white males look worse and everyone else–women, minorities, gays–look better (except Asians, who despite being more than half the world’s population are statistically invisible). The thing is, IQ tests and academics are biased in favor of the verbal-visual cognitive style and against the visual-analytic cognitive style (ref. Tony Attwood), so if anything these groups are significantly less useful than their grades and test scores would suggest.
I should qualify this as “straight white Christian males” because one of you recently put me onto implicit pattern learning: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18362-3. Sorry, I can’t remember who it was or I’d H/T.
Aeoli Pera 
Am I an exception to this?
It’s a spectrum from male-brained to female-brained underneath.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? I’m assuming you’re positing the claim that being more male-brained will allow you to have cognitive abilities others would not possess and thus give straight white males a very strong advantage.
On a side note, blacks are very segmented and thus the top-performing blacks will do far better than their IQ in terms of cognition not tested by IQ and emotional processes that take place. For example, blacks are superb at emotional fluency in the higher performing segments of their population.
One thing I have detailed questions about are reaction times on race, from complex to simple. I can imagine SRT would follow Rushton’s model but complex reaction times may be very complex (pun intended) in its inherent nature in regards to race.
I have heard that Australoids (Aborigines) perform better in a lot of cognitive tasks not measured by IQ so maybe that might be a counterexample as well here. Overall, the pattern the seems to be that straight white males can perform better than their IQ but it is not necessarily exclusive to them.
>Can you clarify what you mean by this?
Tony Attwood was referencing how academics test things the non-Asperger’s brain–the feminine brain–is better at. That’s all I’m saying. Men are generally smarter than their grades suggest, women are generally dumber than their grades suggest. On top of that, whites are more creative than NE Asians despite lower IQs–again, we can draw the parallel because Asians are more neurotypical than whites.
>On a side note, blacks are very segmented and thus the top-performing blacks will do far better than their IQ in terms of cognition not tested by IQ and emotional processes that take place. For example, blacks are superb at emotional fluency in the higher performing segments of their population.
While it’s true high-IQ blacks have an emotional intelligence tilt (and you aren’t the first to notice), keep in mind that theory of mind plays a huge role in being good at taking tests. You have to be able to guess what answer the test maker wanted. Thus, it is in fact measured by IQ tests and academics.
>One thing I have detailed questions about are reaction times on race, from complex to simple. I can imagine SRT would follow Rushton’s model but complex reaction times may be very complex (pun intended) in its inherent nature in regards to race.
It’s pretty easy. Simple reaction times have a weak-medium relation to g, and complex reaction times have less of a relation to g but correlate better with a full-scale IQ test. NE Asians will excel other races on both (hence dominance of both ping pong and dance dance revolution).
>I have heard that Australoids (Aborigines) perform better in a lot of cognitive tasks not measured by IQ so maybe that might be a counterexample as well here. Overall, the pattern the seems to be that straight white males can perform better than their IQ but it is not necessarily exclusive to them.
The facts were misrepresented to you. What Australoids are better at is specialized skills *weakly correlated* with IQ, similar to being very good at driving, tying your shoes, or bartending. There’s one IQ subtest where they are in fact much better–visual memory–but this is simply a tilted IQ and is in fact measured by IQ tests.
Ah thank you for those clarifications, Aeoli! Always appreciate learning something new especially from someone as insightful as you are!
Np