Replying in a second comment to the parts you edited in (to keep conversation flow clear and also so you see this remark):

On the second world or third world that is irrelevant semantics.

I outlined precisely why this wasn't just a semantic issue. China and most Chinese citizens are pretty well off and they have access to a decent education system. This isn't a semantic issue. A moderately smart random Chinese citizen has pretty decent chances at success.

and as rather strong evidence that Luke is approximately as intelligent as the least intelligent version of Luke that can look the same to us, it suffices to cite normal distribution of intelligence.

I don't understand this comment. I can't parse it in any way that makes sense. Can you expand/clarify on this remark? Also, is this to be understood as a new argument for a dramatic intelligence gap and not an attempt to address the previously listed proxies?