You state that wealthy countries, such as America, contain people with higher IQ's by virtue of the fact that higher wealth creates higher IQ's. You state, as evidence, that poor countries produce no new innovations, and therefore have lower IQ's. I take exception to the assumption in 1). I came from a 'poor' family, but I also come from a line of people with IQ's qualifying for MENSA/ women of MENSA. My mother was on welfare while getting her Masters. Clearly, being poor didn't lower our IQ's, and I venture to submit that no amount of wealth could raise the IQ's of the ignoramics that live down the street from me. 2.) IQ scoring is subjective; I think we can agree. Being poor does not keep one from learning. Having money does not bestow intellegence. You say, “problem-solving, critical-thinking, and pattern-finding abilities, among other things distinct from knowledge. These shouldn't be affected by standardized education, but they are." It is also affected by early childhood exposure, which can and does come from providing children with stimulating, nurturing environments, which does not cost money. As to your comments about poor countries, I said the exception would be people who are literally living in survivalist mode. It is the will to live better, to solve problems of hardship and discomfort that give rise to invention. If a man sits in wealth, waited on by servants, fed through no effort or thought of his own, where is his motivation to improve farming machinery? One the other hand, if a man toiled for his food, in his own fields, and uses a stick to pound holes into the dirt, it is him that would look for a way to do such a thing easier or better, that would take a scrap piece of metal he finds, and fashion it into a nifty drill, or attach it to a log of wood, and hook that log to a mule to be pulled through the soil to make a furrow. The man with his servants, feeding him food he does not toil for, has no need to think of these things. Of course, the absolutely starving man would just be out there 24/7 looking for a plant, grub, or root to eat, and would have to use his time/energy to get enough to eat...but he would have to THINK of a better way to do so, if he planned to survive for any length of time. His struggle would prod him to find a better, easier way. His discomfort being his motivating factor. His environment would dictate that he get inventive and gain knowledge of his environment, or perish. Necessity breeds invention. People struggling to survive are busy trying to survive; that does not mean they do not have the intelligence to innovate, it just means that they do not have the time to pursue such things, nor the power to share their inventions with the world, in order to get credit for them. I get the impression from your statements that you believe all the poor to be of low intelligence in your Arab countries, as well as other poor countries. Consider that every immigrant that first came to this country was poor; most of them were not educated. How then could you explain their inventions and innovations, based on your premises? I submit that it was the freedom and ability to succeed or to fail, and to be responsible for your own welfare, to eat the fruit of your own labor, which gave rise to the inventions that made their toil easier and more productive. That wealth you speak of was MADE and EARNED from the intelligence of many people, from all kinds of poor countries, applied concretely, in the form of inventions and innovations, applied to their environments, which demanded they think or fail. Think or not. Apply their God-given intelligence or perish! 'Not having' brought the necessity of intellegent action that bred the invention that created the wealth. That seems simple to understand. Those countries that do not use their intelligence, that do not allow the freedom from terror, that create an environment in which people must live in survivalist mode, they are what stunt intelligence’s creative environment. If I might die tomorrow, why should I extend the energy to create anything today? For what?! I will not have tomorrow to improve upon! Freedom to act, and not being acted upon in a hostile environment is necessary for a man to be creative within his intelligence. You counted the man's coins, and decided this bought him the education that gave him his intellegence. You have it backwards. His freedom to use his intellegence in a non-hostile environment made him seek knowledge and education, and together he used them to create inventions and innovations, that then led to his wealth, in a country that allowed him the right to the wealth he earned.