Those observations are also consistent with "Inverting cause and effect", but not in your position's favour. So one should want to investigate the directions of causality etc., instead of assuming.
Actually, they were meant to be both consistent with "Inverting cause and effect" and in my position's favour.
My position isn't that poor areas can't possibly fare lower in IQ tests than richer areas.
It is that (1) IQ tests are not good indicators of human potential (or even of intelligence), (2) IQ tests are biased against poorer people and cultures, (3) poorer people aren't poor because of low IQ, if anything it's the opposite (both in that such tests are stacked against poorer people with less education, and because poverty related stress, lack of nutrition etc, can stall development and thus make you fare worse in cognitive tests, in ways that the exact same person, genetics-wise, wouldn't if they had a richer upbringing).
What kind of data would you accept as falsifying this belief?