In seven easy steps.
Let’s examine the Lynn method of HBD pseudoscience:
1. You come up with a hypothesis, such as the idea that GDP varies with IQ, and that there is a casual relationship so that national IQ determines national GDP (and other measures of national success and productivity).
2. Instead of being a proper scientist and viewing your hypothesis with skepticism, and attempting to falsify the hypothesis, you instead desperately try to find data points to support your hypothesis, including cherry picking data and “estimating” (i.e., fabricating) IQ scores based on some achievement test data (tests that are not necessarily g-loaded and tests that Asians are known to cheat on).
3. In order to explain the ludicrously low IQs “estimated” in this fashion, you invent “intermediate racial clines” in European populations, based upon laughably misinterpreted single locus data and/or outdated studies, while openly ignoring the established fact that autosomal DNA studies irrefutably reject the idea that the relevant populations are some sort of “intermediate racial cline” significantly different from other “non-intermediate” European populations (including those in the same nation state). The data instead show the usual, known gradual genetic clines that exist within Europe along the North-South and East-West axes, so that there are gradual and proportional shifts in ancestry proportions moving along, for example, the North-South axis of of the Italian state. Thus, S. Italians are slightly "less Northern European" and slightly "more Near Eastern" than are N. Italians, but are hardly some sort of mid-way, intermediate racial cline spanning between N. Italians and Near Eastern/North African populations. In the same manner, one would not label Russians and Finns as "intermediate racial clines" between Europeans and Asians, just because they are a (small) bit "more Asian" than are NW European Celto-Germanic populations. Gradual genetic clines and low levels of admixture exist across Europe, and these do not define intermediate populations with IQs marginally higher than that of American Negroes.
4. You then ignore, or spin away, actual IQ data that completely refute the “estimates” you’ve “calculated.” After all, your “estimates” fall neatly on a linear regression of IQ-GDP (actually, correlation, but since you assume causation, it’s akin to a [invented] linear regression), while the real IQ data present a more complicated and nuanced story. So the real data must be “wrong.”
5. Instead of admitting that you are wrong, or even just admitting the possibility of being wrong, you double down on your errors, obstinately defending data and explanations that do not, and cannot, support your hypothesis.
6. Then someone on The Mankind Quarterly advisory board writes a fawning review of your work, with the interesting fact that you yourself are the Assistant Editor of the journal reviewing your own work (no conflict of interest there, certainly). That review is then breathlessly reproduced at a pro-Jewish “racialist” site (that has previously described its viewpoint as “yellow supremacist”), despite the fact that site knows full well that the work is highly controversial and is hardly supported by iron-clad facts.
7. The most charitable explanation of all this is that Lynn is emotionally invested in his hypothesis, and identifies his entire career and his professional reputation (such as it is) on that hypothesis and its supporting theories being correct. Therefore, he’ll refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of being wrong (particularly on the population genetics data, about which there is no doubt), and he’ll be enabled in his pseudoscience by HBDers and Nutzis.