My personal theory about IQ being 'notoriusly not reliable' is this.

I have been subjected to IQ tests since about 1961. I've done them for government studies, as part of my education, as part of psychological valuations, etc. I've done so many of them I've lost count, and I've done many different types.

In all of them, without exception, I have never scored less than 165, and the highest I've scored is off-the-graph. One doctor told me I had the highest creativity score in his 30 year practice. With the exception of tests conducted when I was a child, all of these tests ran anything from 2 to 5 hours.

If they were that unrealiable, I wouldn't have scored as gifted continually for my entire life.

What is true is that people who score as average or lower do not like their scores, and so they are disaparaging the tests.

The only concessions I will make are these:

1. If people, as in Africa, have not had protein and nutrious food, since they were babies, then the brain does not develop properly, and therefore it's unfair to label less than intelligent.

2. If people have never been educated, i.e. learnt to read, write, and add, then they can hardly be tested using those parameters.

That said, the people who are tested in Asia and in the west, have been taught to read, write, and add. And, yes, Asia is a region, and the people who live in it are Asians. And they do have higher scores than caucasions (white people) who generally live in the west.