The idea of repressiveness is encountered in the debate about the relationship between intelligence and race when it comes to explaining differences in mean IQs between races. In particular, there is a traditional model for explaining intelligence, which works on the principle of a combination of natural genetic material and upbringing. According to this model, genetic predisposition, combined with social conditions, is sufficient for the formation of a specific level of human intelligence.
In reality, however, this model is imperfect and requires substantial adjustments due to its excessive generalization. Intelligence testing needs to be seen in relation to the evolving state of the cognitive sciences in the making during the 20th century. Many of the collected data and developed methods, although they claim to be objective, express theoretical bias. This affects the entire methodology for conducting a particular test, as it affects the selection conditions and adjusts the study to the initial hypothesis. In many discussions, the difference between intelligences is explained primarily genetically, despite the fact that the collection of information itself must undergo rethinking.
The principles of collecting information are largely determined by the selection of respondents from an emphasized racially homogeneous social circle. This inevitably leaves a mark on the results, since social pressure in some of these areas can literally overwhelm the intellectual abilities of people. At the same time, emphasizing the genetic side of research, it falsely misleads about the hereditary lower mental abilities of representatives of marginalized racial groups. Cross-cultural and interracial studies, for example, demonstrate that genetic predisposition does not play a fundamental primary role in the development of intelligence. Discussion of evolutionary regressiveness can only take place when research is emphatically not involved in any biological theory and takes into account all social characteristics in testing.