Honestly I can't think of much of a medium on which something like this would happen. We all have the same brains. They are the size they are because of how many times neurons reproduce fetally. That's a discrete number as far as I understand. A difference up or down would be absolutely enormous. Otherwise, the vast majority of genetic differences that we associate with "race" are purely aesthetic. And even for the non-aesthetic ones, it is often some side effect of an aesthetic one. For instance, darker-skinned people have more bone fractures. That's purely because Vitamin D is harder to produce behind darker skin. Perhaps that could affect cognitive ability, but that would just be from a Vitamin D deficiency, not a racial identity. And if all this were the case, history wouldn't back it up much either. Since basically every group we consider different "races" have at one time been intellectual world centers.

**Race Science - for understandable reasons - is one of the most ferociously political of topics. But if we're debating it as science, there is certainly a debate to be had** The fundamental premise is that heritability accounts - at least - for some of the traits we exhibit, without discounting the immense power of environmentalism (nurture, the culture we're brought up in). The broader question is whether we should treat 'Race Science' as science or politics - and respond accordingly. Check out [this Parlia opinion](https://www.parlia.com/o/some-scientific-findings-should-be-censored) on whether we should privilege politics over science Here, a calmer case for the [Hereditarian hypothesis](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920301045), by Bo Winegard, Ben Winegard and Jonathan Anomaly.