Like fuck it's all just g, get a clue about the field before mouthing off. G is firstly exclusively a measure of intelligence, not all mental attributes, and secondly only an overall coefficient on top of many individual cognitive propensities, or are you really so foolish as to believe that starkly differing weightings in different types of cognitive task performances between individuals with the same g estimation are just random happenstance?

And again g is exclusively determined by performance measurements only for tests under the umbrella of intelligence. Those don't typically include things such as empathy, or personality traits such as conscientiousness and agreeableness, which are still strictly mental traits in the sense they are purely products of the central nervous system. Because g under current methodologies is generated by outcome observations rather than direct measurement of causative factors, any mental traits not measured by the intelligence tests that feed into creating g are de-facto independent from it. Even if the causative factors later turn out to be linked it just means the g values as we understand them currently are missing important measurements and we have a faulty model that needs to drastically redefine what "intelligence" is.

Honestly midwit really does seem to be the mating call of hypocrites who get headaches trying to understand more than one factor at a time. Shouting out "I'm more than a midwit!" first doesn't make spouting off one superficial technical term you once heard of but don't understand any less obnoxious, you still sound like a bratty middle schooler even with the pre-emptive projection.

And if you think the average intelligence of any animal is higher than the average intelligence of any human ethnicity you're out of your goddamn mind, no wonder you think you're above average intelligence if you think half the world are dumber than apes. Sure you might be able to dredge up a particularly retarded human who would be outsmarted by an orangutan, but the means are worlds apart. For bitching about the difference of one SD you're pretty oblivious to what must be a difference of 2 or more standard deviations, who really knows, they're so far apart no-one even bothers using the same scale to measure them.

Eh, they're black because their ancestors were from sub-Saharan Africa in the relatively recent (in evolutionary terms) past. Even people with equally dark skin aren't colloquially considered black if they don't have African ancestry

But you're right that American blacks were both a specific subset of Africans, and have been separated just about long enough to have developed a slightly distinct distribution of hereditary traits, albeit still closer to modern day Africans than anyone else. So could be considered separately if you're getting into the fine technical details.

But I wouldn't consider "dumber than a bird" to be small detail.