>>509386740
>>509389494
That page goes on to say:
>In 1981, Stephen Jay Gould, the noted Harvard paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, published The Mismeasure of Man, in which he debunked biological deterministic theories of intelligence based on craniometry and psychological testing.
>American biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin, concerned by what he viewed as the oversimplification of genetics, co-authored Not In Our Genes, with Steven Rose and Leon Kamin in 1984. The book questioned the theory of heritability of human behavioral traits such as intelligence as measured by IQ tests.
>Within both the mainstream media and the scientific community, large numbers of people rallied to both support and criticize The Bell Curve, published in 1994 by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Some denounced the book and its authors as supporting scientific racism. In 1996, Stephen Jay Gould updated The Mismeasure of Man, rebutting Bell Curve authors Herrnstein and Murray’s theories on race and intelligence.

So what's the "scientific consensus"? Also, I'm pretty sure a brain can be seen to be more powerful based on the number of folds it has (fewer = less powerful), not its size. More epithelial folds = more capable of being highly intelligent or knowledgeable.

Attached image is IQ by countries, but this image seems kinda broken due to missing text.