@velartrill There are probably some differences, because why wouldn't there be? After all, minds are obviously affected by genes, and since groups of humans have sometimes lived apart for long enough for the genes to diverge in other areas, they probably also diverged in this one. However, it's relatively unlikely for these differences to be significant in most cases, as the evolutionary pressures on the minds weren't sufficiently varied between isolated societies. I don't want to go into evolutionary psychology too much (mostly because I'm not famililar with it enough to recognize the difference between a fringe theory and some actual findings), so I'm not gonna be guessing in which situations such pressures could arise and remain constant over sufficient periods of time. Let's just say I expect this is quite rare.
If you focus on IQ, there are the Ashkenazi, who are poster-boys for the whole theory, since they carry genes that have been identified to correlate with IQ (and autism risk, yay...). They managed to end up in a situation in which they both were forced to have children within their group, and forced to rely on jobs that required lots of mental work *and* had a culture which assigned higher status to people being... nerdy (the latter points are probably intertwined). And even for them the actual influence of genes is heavily intertwined with the aforementioned culture, so it's not that easy to say how significant which one is.
Within the topic of IQ, I just remembered an anectode that might be somewhat important as far as trusting IQ research goes, separate post incoming.
Two of my friend once wrote a paper that was vaguely related to intelligence, and they got it in to a quite big IQ research conference. They came back complaining how racist the whole thing was. So far, so good, maybe they are just SJWs confronted with actual Science™ for the first time, and seeing slightly shifted Gauss curves made their snowflake hearts melt into tears. But they went into considerably more detail and... yeah.
One of the main parts of the event was a talk from an invited guest, clearly revered within the community. The talk was about differences in IQ between races, and at the end the presenter went into a rant, including claims that it can be inferred from the IQ curves and the distributions of jobs in the US that the average black neurosurgeon should be an office drone (this part might differ slightly in details, as I'm relaying from memory what my friend was relaying from memory, but the gist should be intact). Now, considering that black neurosurgeons are AFAIK not disastrously incompetent, we can infer that the person giving the talk had trouble in their relation to reality in one of the following ways:
1. The influence of IQ on neurosurgeon ability is far smaller than they believed.
2. The differences in IQ are far smaller than the research indicates.
Obviously one can ask "¿Por qué no los dos?", and I suspect that is the correct answer. Influence of IQ on personal success is hard to prove (the attempt I know of produced no evidence of this, while producing evidence that average IQ correlates with quality of life within a country), and it's a simple fact that personal beliefs of researchers are biasing studies in nontrivial ways (there are some famous ESP studies that had very hard to explain and apparently unintentional problems). Considering the latter, the fact that the IQ research community (or at least a significant part of it – I'm not sure whether this was _the_ biggest IQ conference, but it was definitely mainstream enough) seems to be reality-defying racist implies that their results should be taken with a grain of salt.
And yes, I only mean a grain not completely discredited – they seem to try following proper methodology and sometimes get credible effects that are big enough that they cannot be completely explained away by their bias. Just don't believe any titles or abstracts automatically, you have to dig deeper to actually learn something.
it's startling to hear that IQ research is still so unabashedly racist even in the current climate; i would have expected all the problematic researchers would have been long since canceled to smithereens.
the main reason i found the HBD arguments compelling was that they would seem to at least partly explain some otherwise inexplicable shit in the US wrt ethnic integration -- i.e. why american blacks can't seem to integrate and recover socioeconomically like many of the other previously hated and abused ethnic minorities have or are currently doing, despite massive public and private efforts that are probably only even close to matched by the effort to drive women of all ethnicities into occupations we don't want