What in hell do average IQs have to do with anything other than to somehow show that you might be somehow superior to someone else. An average does not exist in reality, only in a mind where mathematics is created, and does not say anything about the individual elements which are averaged.
Those who get out of a hell hole in order to sneak into the USA are not averages but individual human beings. In fact those who try to leave are probably high enough in IQ to be above the average. What is your IQ so that I can get some idea whether you are somehow superior to me or those whom I deal with. Should I decide that if your IQ is lower or higher than mine, that one of us is lesser than the other in some way.
Would you all immigrants take an IQ test to be sure that they do not lower the average IQ of US citizens. It is interesting that different countries have different average IQs, but is completely irrelevant to anything but to the conditions in the country in which one develops one's self.
The only thing that should be considered about immigration is whether it is legal or not, because raising or lowering of an average IQ for the USA says nothing about individuals living in the USA. The publication of the book "The Bell Curve" should have been enough about IQ differences to find some other average to worry about like average time it takes to eat a Big Mac or to urinate. Then we could decide that too much time was spent by some to do those activities and then do something to decrease the average time for USA citizens doing the activities.

On the video link below, just before the 28 minute mark, Stefan Molynuex points out these differences. After he wishes it were not so, and what he would give to make it not so, Tew (an Objectivist) labels him a racist.
https://youtu.be/aIdWAa-0oOw

Depends on which "races" are being compared. The countries where most of the illegal immigrants are coming from have much lower average IQ's than US citizens.
https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-coun...
Stefan Molyneux did a youtube video with graphics on this specific issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcMd9...

What are the "vast differences in IQ scores" to which you allude? My most recent reading indicates that the differences exist, but that they are relatively small.

Jan

The human race, because of its conscious ability to conceptualize, Is a most complex species.Its ability to thrive even under the most difficult of conditions makes it one of the most successful species on Earth.One o the things which make it unique is its ability to be self aware, as a result to maintain volition.

Agreed.

A certain amount of compartmentalized information should always be measured but more important is how the individual can integrate that information should always be measured as well...that can be daunting when pressed for time in these tests.

I do think that IQ measured integrally can rise with accumulated experiences and information as one ages...however, some areas of the test could suffer also because we don't use all of the information we learned in school for a good portion of our lives.
For instance, I haven't used a lot of advanced mathematics in my life, I would likely fail the test on Algebra but would probably do better in History, chemistry, biology and psychology than I did in college.

That would mean that IQ can go up as an individual ages. If enough testing scientifically shows this, it invaildates the way IQ is measured.
Sounds like more science is needed in this field.

Probably the only reason to look at people as groups is when you are determining the social desires driven by the culture they select for themselves, i.e. a gang, religion or governing body the group has chosen. The influence of the group can often determine the ideologies and the philosophy that the group will act on. Within that philosophy or group there will still be variances of the individual as each seeks the benefit he believes he will derive from an action. Unfortunately groups tend to be violent and driven by theft and sometimes relies on their moral rationalization of their behavior rather than intellectually and rationally engaging with reality. Making decisions for themselves (individuals) relies on responsibility for failure and ambition to achieve success by continuing to construct feasible actions. It is easier for the group (mob) to rely on the actions of others and steal and blame the group if an action is the incorrect one. The group is the individual waiting to be told what to do rather than deciding what to do which would then make him an identifiable individual.
Ayn Rand was inspirational in her rational thinking and identifying that A is A no matter what the circumstance, color, or other inconsequential identifier.

African Americans in the city states have not been taught or allowed to assimilate a whole lot of valuable information...therefore the test results are skewed by that environment.
Same goes for any uncivilized country where the information level is low and only geared for raw survival.

"Those who deny individual rights cannot be defenders of minorities." --Ayn Rand
Well, hell's bells, that statement will not hack it with the PC thought police crowd.
Same goes for lib mobs who are not mobs because "mob" never applies to lib mob behavior. Just ask Antifa.

IQ tests, not in total but for the most part, measure the amount of compartmentalized information in one's head...not to any great degree, (depending on the test format) the integration of that information.

In the Army, I took a highly integrated IQ test and achieved a score of 138...whoopie do! On the average, it doesn't mean a whole lot other that the fact that I use my mind and am able to integrate information.

An IQ test today would be tainted toward collectivism and all it's antilectual bull crap, those taking that test would likely score High but in a standard integrated test would probably score below 100.

I recall being in the eighth grade in a southern public school in a class on "social studies." The teacher inexplicably announced to the class that my IQ had been tested at 145. I have no idea why he did that other than to prompt me to study and work harder (I studied little in those days), but the impact on my relationship with others in the class was profound. I was shunned, made fun of, and was quite miserable the remainder of that year.
So IQ in that case did make a difference, but at times in high school and college, I think my IQ was around 70, based on some of the stupid things I did and said. Some even continuing to this day.

"Should that type of grouping be denied?"
I wouldn't deny people the right to be wrong, but I think it's wrong to divide people into groups of "sicks" and "healthies". People can be sick or healthy, but that doesn't mean they entered into a group. I similarly don't think of US citizens as being "Americans". They're people who have US citizenship.

At the core, I think of people as sentient beings, who have various abilities and limitations, various physical attributes, various licenses or records of wrongdoing from authorities, and so on. Those abilities and attributes are real. The authorities could be right or wrong. I just don't think of any of that as changing the nature of what people are.

I think the whole issue is not real. Most people would not suppress evidence that having rolling tongue is correlated with mathematical ability. It doesn't matter. Even if it were true, we'd still need to test people's ability, not just ask them to roll their tongue. But race is a set of physical traits people assign to an identity group. The identity grouping is the problem. The facts, e.g. which genes carry skin pigmentation, are of academic interest. The correlations only matter to the extent people are racist. Suppressing science will not stop racism.

The big things in the future, beyond my lifetime, are stopping/slowing aging, enhancing human intelligence and strength, and fighting infectious diseases. It sounds controversial, but if I think it's inevitable and beneficial if we use it cautiously. If people can cause a child not to be born unusually weak or slow to learn, they will use it so their child isn't below average, which outside Lake Wobegon means an artificially enhanced humanity.

What about dividing a bunch of individuals into those that are sick and those that are healthy? Should that type of grouping be denied?

The progressive concept of Race is a false one. There is no such thing as different races of the Human species, whether they be conscious humans or non-conscious humanoids.

To base racial differences upon skin color, body shape, IQ or place of origin is pure nonsense. There are way too many other traits that are shared between all Humans...even the evil ones...sadly.

I would think a different Racial entity, one that is sentient and aware of self, beyond it's own survival might be a Dolphin, Whale or Elephant...if in fact they fit the above definition.

I didn't say you were suppressing facts.

However, many facts concerning racial trends are suppressed. The root cause could be cultural but nonetheless, to speak of any differences is dangerous in our current cultural environment.

Glad you agree. Areas in science that try to find answers to questions such as:
Why do some people have stronger immune systems than other people?
Why do some people have higher intelligence quotients than other people?
Why do some people live longer than other people?

...should be free to use the scientific method to discover truth that can benifit everyone.

"which aggressively sought out highly intelligent people was concentrating them into groups that would naturally meet and marry."
This sounds interesting. I wonder sometimes if more aspies meeting and marrying might be causing more autism.

Absolutely not. Sticking to the principles of seeking the truth, even when the findings are undesirable, is not only right, but it denies the racists the bogus point that they're telling the truth that they don't wancha to know.

Not so long as it's about the individuals' actions.

Sometimes it is appropriate to look at people as groups -- for example when you are looking at population trends. The mistake is thinking that it tells you something about individuals.

The Bell Curve was actually not about race. The main theses was that the shift in Universities from being essentially a place for the upper class to go to being one which aggressively sought out highly intelligent people was concentrating them into groups that would naturally meet and marry. They thought this could have serious consequences for the country as a whole. And maybe it has.

They had a chapter on IQ and mentioned that the mean IQ of African Americans was below that of Whites which was below that of Asians. This caused the to be intensely vilified by those who insist that there is no difference between groups of people.

Then does that mean that science in these areas should NOT be actively prevented from finding the truth?

So we group individuals into those who respect individual rights and those who violate individual rights? We are still dividing individuals into groups.