[dash2]

I don't read the comment as suggesting that Chinese people are genetically smart - just that they are smart. That IQ varies by race or ethnicity is an established fact, not a debunked theory. The controversial question is why it varies - nature or the environment?

[unityByFreedom]

Nature vs nurture is an ancient argument. Science indicates both contribute, and IQ is a subjective measure of what's perceived as intelligent. It certainly isn't settled science that some ethnicities are more intelligent on average than others. That is some James Damore BS that can never be measured. And by the way, we are one human race, according to the scientific definition.

[dash2]

You are only right to the extent that IQ is indeed a "subjective measure". For example, there are IQ differences between black and white people in the US. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gaps_in_the_United.... Debates about this take the form (a) of arguing about what IQ measures, and whether it is valid; (b) of arguing about whether environmental or genetic factors contribute to the differences - for instance, if you have worse nutrition, experience more air pollution, or have a less stimulating home environment, all of these might cause your IQ to be lower than someone else. However, there is no serious debate that the gaps in IQ tests (and many other achievement measures) exist.

The debate about whether IQ is "subjective" is ongoing but some things are pretty clearly known. For instance, IQ is highly predictive of many life outcomes, and many different kinds of academic tests all load on a single factor (general intelligence).

This has all been debated up and down the hillsides, and although I don't think IQ is the single measure that defines everything (obviously?), you are premature to dismiss IQ as "subjective". That's far from obvious.

[unityByFreedom]

Your thesis and supportive arguments contradict your conclusion.