> So, without IQ it would be impossible for social programs to give better educational opportunities to exist?

It wouldn't be impossible. The extra resources might not go as far, which makes the program more likely to look like a waste.

> how much evidence supports that better educational opportunities truly manifests into the outcomes we socially desire?

The rate of technological progress we can make as a species is largely dictated by the area under the +2 sigma -> infinity region of the IQ curve. Further adjusted by the amount of those people that we can find and motivate to participate in the economy. As for evidence, the US poaches high IQ people from around the world. You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.

> The rate of technological progress we can make as a species is largely dictated by the area under the +2 sigma -> infinity region of the IQ curve

That was precisely my point. If little Johnny or Sally need a special education program to properly challenge and educate them, then I hate to break the news to their families, but whatever "it" is, those children don't have "it."

I also find it interesting how "gifted" programs and the like are predominately a Western intervention. To my knowledge, countries like Japan and China do not have "gifted" programs. I am not saying there are not academic and social discrepancies between highly intelligent and the normies, but Western culture does tend to be less community driven than cultures of the two countries I previously mentioned.

> You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.

I cannot comment about modern times, but I know a certain group of people that I am half descendant from were commonly denied entry into the US during the 1920s - 1950s. However, those same people allegedly had the highest IQ scores on average. At least, historically.