If iq is genetic are there certain races that have higher or lower races, such as east asians having higher iqs

1. What the question is really asking — genetics within groups versus genetics between groups

The careful way to parse the question is to separate individual heritability from group-mean causation: many behavior‑genetic studies report substantial heritability of IQ within contemporary populations (estimates often cited in adulthood around 50–80 percent), but high heritability inside groups does not logically imply that average differences between groups are genetic in origin ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The empirical patterns psychologists and geneticists report

Twin, adoption and family studies consistently show that genetic variation explains a large portion of individual differences in measured cognitive ability in many settings, and that heritability tends to rise with age; that is established within-population evidence ^{[1] [5]}. By contrast, studies that roughly approximate “common‑garden” tests for group causation — admixture analyses, transracial adoption studies, and natural experiments — have not produced consistent evidence that the degree of African versus European ancestry predicts cognitive performance in ways required by a straightforward genetic‑race hypothesis ^{[3] [6] [7]}.

3. Why population‑level differences are not simply reducible to genes

Multiple reviews and methodological critiques show that group gaps in test scores are sensitive to non‑genetic factors — socioeconomic status, education, early‑life nutrition, and test exposure — and that many statistical patterns sometimes invoked as “genetic signals” can also arise from environmental causes, measurement issues, and gene‑environment interplay ^{[2] [3] [8]}. The Flynn effect (rising scores across decades) is a stark example: large, rapid score increases across nations and groups are difficult to reconcile with a static genetic hierarchy ^[8].

4. The contested recent terrain — genomics, polygenic scores, and limits

Advances in genome‑wide association studies (GWAS) will improve understanding of genetic contributions to cognitive variation, but experts stress that SNP associations establish correlation not simple causation across populations; differential SNP frequencies across geographic groups would not, by themselves, settle the causal question because of gene–environment interactions, population structure, and linkage effects ^{[1] [9]}. In short, genomic data could illuminate mechanisms, but do not presently justify claims that entire racial groups are genetically superior or inferior in intelligence.

5. What most mainstream scientists conclude today and the role of history and bias

Mainstream syntheses and recent reviews emphasize caution: while IQ is at least partly heritable within groups, there is no compelling scientific reason to endorse a claim that observed mean differences among socially defined racial groups are genetically determined; the history of this debate — from Jensen to The Bell Curve — shows that social agendas and methodological weaknesses have repeatedly muddied conclusions ^{[2] [8] [10]}. Some scholars defend continued inquiry into group differences, arguing for open science; others stress ethical risks and point to the weight of evidence for environmental explanations ^{[1] [7]}.

6. Bottom line

Current evidence supports that individual IQ variation has a substantial genetic component, but it does not support asserting that entire racial groups (for example, East Asians, Europeans, Africans) are genetically higher or lower in intelligence; key admixture, adoption and cross‑population analyses have failed to provide clear genetic explanations for group mean differences, and environmental explanations remain powerful and better supported by available data ^{[1] [3] [7]}.