I disagree. That is usually what I do because I am an argumentative penguin after all. The supposition here is that intellectual superiority can be measured statistically and by measurements created within a system which has pre-defined intellectual superiority. It dismisses examples which don’t meet its criteria. Fish being measured by riding bikes etc.

Europeans live in a relatively small non-homogenous geographic location where resources are scattered. This is the perfect crucible for technological (read warfare) advancement. This set the tone for what constitutes ‘intelligence’ - and when coupled with a society in which access to resources are often dependent on wealth/social leverage it’s hardly surprising non-whites in such a society cannot innovate. When that society spreads itself around the world (via the British empire) then invocation becomes the preserve of the white upper middle class man with a beard.

If you were to change your definition of what constitutes intelligence and innovation to be the ability of a population to overcome problems specific to their local area, I’d argue you’d find intelligence to be universal. The question then remains, how many non-white innovative geniuses have we squandered in our myopia. How many people who could’ve changed the course of the world have lacked the social capital and empowerment to see the fruits of their brain power. Although a separate debate… this is doubly true for women and quadruply true for non-white women still languishing in heavily religious and patriarchal societies.

Here concludeth the Penguin view. :o)