It may be the case that this only holds true for certain IQ values; African-Americans with an IQ of 117 may earn the same as white Americans with the same IQ, but African-Americans with an IQ of 80 may not. IQ is also, as far as I'm aware, not an accurate reflection of one's educational level (i.e. a high school dropout may have the same IQ as someone with a doctorate).

@F1Krazy - It's quite suspicious, knowing this individual and what their clear and stated political agenda was, that they choose to give a single value rather than doing a proper regression analysis or whatever. It suggests that doing that might have revealed additional racial bias in earning not explained by IQ scores (ignoring all the problems with IQ testing as a measure of innate ability).

@Obie2.0: turns out his data is just reproduction from the less ignored Bell Curve by other authors, so this might actually be answerable, as that other book was dissected a bit more. (Lynn's book has virtually no reviews.) Also, in part due to poor editing, the OP misunderstood the claim. It is actually about an IQ 100, i.e. average, although it's still not terribly clear if they just picked that bracket or if they did any kind of averaging. Since the year for the income is missing (in Lynn) it's hard to say (just from his retelling of H&M).

On Skeptics.SE, we require claims to be notable - they must be widely believed. It is hard to show that, so we accept a proxy of being widely seen or read. A popular article is perfect. Sometimes people confuse this meaning of notabiity with meaning the claim must come from a reliable source. That is not required. I have deleted such comments from this question, to avoid further confusing new users.

@Oddthinking - Yes, but I don't think the site needs to ignore that some questions are asked with an agenda. If you doubt that the claim of this self-declared racist is promoted/taken at face value versus critically questioned, consider the part that was edited out, which declared that Chinese people and Jews "love money" (racial stereotyping whichever way you slice it) and implicitly affirmed the claim: "I saw another that Asians earn more than whites as if their IQ is 15 points higher. Perhaps because chinese love money even more than jews. We literally have got God of money you know."

@Obie2.0: Attacking the original claimant is a classic ad hominem fallacy. They may have some unspeakably racist views that horrify all reasonable people and be factually correct about a particular claim. Either way, that doesn't make the claim off-topic. If you want to spend a paragraph to address the racist implications of a claim, feel free to include that in an answer that first addresses whether the claim is true.

My concern is about the site becoming a forum for spreading bigoted ideas rather than examining them. Just as I could go through, e.g. Mein Kampf and ask two dozen questions asking whether various Nazi bullet points were actually true, but I don't think that would be good for the site.

@Obie2.0 Isn't the whole point of skepticism to find out if particular claim is true or false? This does not make the source any better or worse, nor is it an endorsement or condemnation of the source.

@Obie2.0: FWTW skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4482/… vs skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4324/…

@Believeitornot... The answer there that says "That said 'Has the Holocaust been exaggerated?' seems like quite the evil frame to set up, including personal belief system of the unwelcome kind" captures my concern. There may be no difference between a question that asks "Is income inequality just a matter of some races being less intelligent, except for Jews and Chinese people, who are just greedy?" and one framed more like "Lynn claims that IQ explains everything but others disagree; who is correct?", but there is definitely a difference in terms of the discourse that it promotes on the site.

@Believeitornot... - I don't think a lot of people here give enough weight to just how much a question that just repeats a claim uncritically in the title and body without any skepticism in the question itself can slope in favor of spreading it instead of debunking it, particularly when it does not get any answers, as is the case with many of the most "out there" questions, including this one, which can look as if no one has any response to an obviously correct assertion.

Can I even know why the question is so controversial? Most people that believe that say some group have lower IQ than other group do not do so to justify discrimination. They do so to justify meritocracy. The idea is that if IQ is the issue then disparity of income is natural and hence there is no structural racism or whatever. In any case, if it's wrong just show me what you think is correct. We know that jews and asians make more money. We also know that 66% of SAT takers scoring between 750-800 are asians.

@user4951 "Most people that believe that say some group have lower IQ than other group do not do so to justify discrimination." [citation-needed]

@Computersays'no'--SOooooo I think there are likely several relevant Meta questions related to this issue. However, the two you have chosen are irrelevant. They are in regards to a specific troll and his pet subjects.

@user4951 I should note: If it were true that pay was related more directly to IQ than race, "there is no structural racism" would be a stupidly dangerous conclusion to reach. The results of IQ tests are affected by a myriad of factors such as nutrition, which are, in turn, affected by structural racism.