Originally posted by Vosh
That must be why the electorate chose a college cheerleader over someone who has dedicated his life to protecting the consumer (Ralph Nader) for U.S. President. [/B]
I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's not "my jargon;" it's the science of psychology. I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt any more and will simply spell things out for you neatly:You should know that I don't speak your jargon
Because multiple studies found it to be true.THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.
Why do you think that?
They aren't oppressed. But they are unintelligent.Not when they are oppressed by those who are a little more clever.
Vosh doesn't understand those things, Jerry. He understands politics.If you would like to discuss IQ and it's importance (or non-importance) to human society then leave out the political comments.
What purpose would that serve?Intelliegence determining the prosperity of a nation? That's a rich thought. It seems to me that that idea is out to badmouth our international neighbors.
It isn't; that's why the correlation is 40% rather than 100%. The authors of the study point out a variety of other factors which seem to influence national wealth, such as natural resources, communism, and so forth.Besides, that can't be true for every scenario.
America's IQ is 98, compared to a British mean of 100. This is, sadly, eight points above the average IQ in the world, which is 90. And of course the United States is a highly capitalistic society with a wealth of natural resources.What is the average IQ in the United States, ranged in the 90's? And the U.S.'s wealth is one of the greatest in the world.
The book gives average IQs for the entire populace. It is worth noting that a high-IQ elite can do wonders for a nation, however.Wait. Does this guy mean the people in charge or the average of the entire populace?
In a democracy, the majority will rule. The majority is roughly 100 IQ throughout 1st world nations, and 100 IQ individuals are easily swayed by appeals to emotion and connect more readily with people in the 100-120 IQ range than in the 140 IQ range.if only more ppl. would vote instead of just Homer Simpson and Fred Flintstone
Who thinks people in third world countries aren't oppressed? Of course they are oppressed. You're the one who won't admit to one of the causes of third world problems - namely, a lack of intelligence. Or hasn't it ever occurred to you to wonder why they are oppressed?I can't believe someone on a physics forum thinks ppl. in third world countries aren't oppressed. This is going to interrupt me in mid thought for a few days...
Originally posted by Nachtwolf
What purpose would that serve?
Lynn and Vanhanen's research investigates the question of why some nations are rich and others poor. Since high IQ individuals usually do better economically than other individuals in the same society, we might expect the same pattern to emerge internationally comparing nations to one another. And, research verifies this - the average IQ is correlated with per capita GDP at around 40%.
Intriguing. Have you ever read anything about how one group (whether a nation or just a neighborhood) will suffer because the smarter ones will leave and go to live with another group where life is nice and as a consequence leave the old group even worse off?
America's IQ is 98, compared to a British mean of 100.
A theory I've had about that is that Britain is simply less oriented toward the lowest common denominator -- it's simply a smaller place (economically). What do you think?
This is, sadly, eight points above the average IQ in the world, which is 90. And of course the United States is a highly capitalistic society with a wealth of natural resources.
Yeah.
In a democracy, the majority will rule. The majority is roughly 100 IQ throughout 1st world nations, and 100 IQ individuals are easily swayed by appeals to emotion and connect more readily with people in the 100-120 IQ range than in the 140 IQ range.
Unfortunately, that rings very true!
Who thinks people in third world countries aren't oppressed? Of course they are oppressed. You're the one who won't admit to one of the causes of third world problems - namely, a lack of intelligence. Or hasn't it ever occurred to you to wonder why they are oppressed?
Ok. I thought you said, "no they aren't". No worries. It occurred to me to wonder once if those in authority (right now called "the Bush administration"; giving the impression that Shrub is calling the shots -- of whiskey, perhaps!) realize that America didn't get started by setting up schools and business ventures and basically doing what we try to do now; setting up present day America wholesale, as 'twere: installing schools, restaurants, businesses, banks and all this and they also realize that these backward places in the world will never just start from scratch armed with the same principles as those given us (which we are thankfully still living off though some work around the clock to replace them with laissez faire capitalism...) and so they conclude, behind closed doors so that ppl. won't hear and become hysterical, that these places have to be forced out of their grinding backwardness. As a consequence, we have the difficult, controversial violent drama of the war in Iraq... Someone called that notion reactionary; but maybe it's what some folks in the right offices are thinking and thinking it's right and for the best even if they could never come right out and try to explain it to the masses. The flaw here as far as I can see is that after forcing things they're still clumsily going in and installing present day America thinking that this is how a thing like America was born in the first place. Anyway; just trying to imagine what they must be thinking making the decisions they seem to be making... It could be that I've been up too long... What do you think?
As a matter of fact, that's the common explanation for Ireland's IQ, which is under 95.Have you ever read anything about how one group (whether a nation or just a neighborhood) will suffer because the smarter ones will leave and go to live with another group where life is nice and as a consequence leave the old group even worse off?
I think that 2 IQ points isn't enough to write home about. Your idea may be true; I don't know much about England. I do know, however, that the 2 point disparity between America and England could just be a fluke.A theory I've had about that is that Britain is simply less oriented toward the lowest common denominator -- it's simply a smaller place (economically). What do you think?
I think I am a dour individual who has learned that every possible problem or complaint which could be raised about society always ends with "because everyone is so stupid." There are other causes for the Iraq war which we could name, none of which truly justify it to my thinking, but in the end they probably come down to human stupidity as well."the Bush administration"... capitalism... war in Iraq... What do you think?
Yes, TenYears, tell us all how the findings of science are contrary to reality!The amount of money amassed has little to do with intelligence anywhere. Anyone who belives this is obviously a beliver and not a thinker since it is contrary to reality.
Hahaha tell us all how to think in black and white, TenYears!You have no clue of absolutes, and it is because you do not, that the unconscious battering ram of human motion will decimate the planet.
Oh, indeed!I am a thinker, at times I am far beyond it.
Eerything is physics. And no, this doesn't support your statements.Human kind will pay by it's own hand. Mark my words. It's physics, even if you don't understand it quite yet.
Hahaha! This isn't Vosh's idea; it isn't even Jerry's or mine. It's Lynn's and Vanhanen's idea, which they supported with - get this - evidence. But why am I telling you this? You're a "thinker."Vosh, have a big glass of milk have a cookie and go to bed. Your idea
Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Hahaha! This isn't Vosh's idea; it isn't even Jerry's or mine. It's Lynn's and Vanhanen's idea, which they supported with - get this - evidence. But why am I telling you this? You're a "thinker."
--Mark
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Vosh, have a big glass of milk have a cookie and go to bed.
No, thanks. See www.milksucks.com.
Your idea of other countries being backward because of what they do not have is off the wall.
Never meant to give that impression. The Middle East, for example, sufferes from a stifling sense of backwardness and grinding poverty. Desperate people are easy to take advantage of. Rulers tend (heh) to want to perpetuate themselves and an unfortunate trap in the Middle East is that if you don't give (or promise) immediate results, which often translates to userping the current rulers, then you find yourself quickly out of a job. So what it takes to govern there is to behave like a thug. It's a job that attracts thugs and it's a vicious cycle. They don't like America because the only time the west comes around is to make shady deal with shady rulers. You won't hear that on the commercial news...
China had zero percent overwieght children, with the advent of western fast food in less than 10 years they are over 10% and growing fast.
Yeah, it's very easy to get and consume too much sugar. You're body craves it all the time so that in the wild you will get at least the minimum amount; but in civilization you can get all the sugar you want and humans naturally want it all the time. I'll bet sugar merchants watch their intake of sugar more than anyone else!
When your in school in and learning structured learning,
School isn't about learning. Learning is as natural as breathing; it can't be stopped, only perverted. School is a jobs creation project. It wasn't a thing to provide growth and learning that has gone wrong and needs reform. It was a bad idea from the get go. Simply; there is no reason for coerced instruction of any kind. Ponder that and then you'll begin to get an idea of why future generations will wonder how we could live like this the same way we look at the Middle Ages and think those ppl. had to be savages to live like that!
"As intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down." --Lisa Simpson
Originally posted by Monique
Did anyone already wonder about the validity of the IQ tests and whether people in some countries are 'conditioned' to do well on those tests?
So yeah, maybe developed countries perform more of those tests, and the people will thus become better at it and get higher scores, just by knowing the drill.
Actually that's what just about everyone already wondered. The short answer is yes, the IQ tests are valid. The long answer is that Lynn and Vanhanen used Raven's Progrssive Matrices to test their hypothesis, which even with coaching for the testees give low scores for people living in third world nations. Part of administering an IQ test involves making sure the testee knows the drill.Did anyone already wonder about the validity of the IQ tests and whether people in some countries are 'conditioned' to do well on those tests?
Haha! Yeah I can never get that name right. I think it's Vanhanen, but my connection is really bad right now so I can't conveniently check.Vanhanen (sp?)
Yep; this is the standard GxE phenomenon. It turns out that smart people seek out cognitively stimulating environments which probably further their intellectual development.smart ppl. tend to leave bad places to go and live in good places and that this causes a brain drain
That black activist was a smart guy. The trouble is exactly that society isn't read for it - since the facts have been known for around 100 years (and pretty much became settled science 50 years ago) it's only the fact that this is unpopular that makes it generally disbelieved.I once heard a black activist argue that while there may be something to research into whether blacks, on average, are less intelligent, society isn't ready to deal with it in a way that would be anything other than destructive. So books like the one in question tend to bolster, for example, white supremecists, even if that wasn't the intention.
It leaves Eugenists. Lynn is a big time eugenist who wrote two books titled Eugenics and Dysgenics, and the book we're discussing here, IQ and the wealth of Nations does a great deal to support his position.I don't know who that leaves except the KKK.
Why put words into my posts which aren't there? Don't you find these preconceptions you have about my views to be encumbering?So, some research appears to show there is a correlation between 'the wealth of nations' and IQ (or similar). Other research shows that IQ (or similar) is primarily (or predominently) hereditary. Conclusion: since you can't change folks' IQ, most people living in Africa had just better get used to being poor?
Lynn's research actually further demonstrates most of this. The trouble is that we can't say that these things themselves are independent of IQ - and, in fact, other findings suggest to contrary. More intelligent people (compared to their peers in the same society) are more educable and more productive workers. They are less crime prone, healther, and longer-lived. They are more likely to take an active interest in government and politics, and tend away from rigid, authoritarian views.Consider: some research has shown there is a correlation between economic growth and degree of openness to free international trade ... and universal primary education ... and sanitation and universal access to clean drinking water ... and stable government ... and corruption (negative correlation) ... and sound fiscal policies ... and good regulatory regimes ... and (it's a long list).
Hahahaha!Maybe this eugenics idea is a waste of time and energy, if what you want to do is increase the wealth of your nation?
Clearly I have to spend some more time analysing Lynn's work. However, as I noted in another thread, "Lynn seems to have merely collected studies done between 1952 and 2000, on subjects whose ages ranged from 3 to 'Adults', with sample sizes ranging from 88 to over 43,000, by a number of different authors." He did NOT do the work himself. (BTW, the other posters on that thread - including Nachtwolf - haven't yet given answers to very basic questions about the data).1) The research doesn't appear to show a correlation. It does show a 40% correlation. Further research is in order to test whether this is accurate, and better understand where it comes from and how it "works."
Again, I need to study the work done by Lynn. For now I merely note that repeated questions - to Nachtwolf and others - have yet to yield even a list of 'sub-Saharan' races (or east Asian ones for that matter).hitssquad wrote: For other nations used in the final regression analysis, [Lynn's] national IQs were estimated by such methods as taking an average of neighboring nations, and using IQ data from racially similar populations (correcting for racial proportion in the latter case).
If the authors had merely collected studies, in the final report there would have been no corrections for known bias, no regression analyses, no comparisons with other IQ-related factors, or the results of any of the other work the authors did.Originally posted by Nereid
"Lynn seems to have merely collected studies done between 1952 and 2000, on subjects whose ages ranged from 3 to 'Adults', with sample sizes ranging from 88 to over 43,000, by a number of different authors." He did NOT do the work himself.
Nation ages test N mean author date
Ethiopia 15-16 SPM 250 67 Lynn, 1994
Hong Kong 3-13 SPM 13,822 103 Lynn et al., 1988
Hong Kong 6-15 SPM 4,500 110 Lynn et al., 1988
Hong Kong 6 CPM 4,858 109 Chan & Lynn, 1989
Israel 9-15 SPM 250 90 Lynn, 1994
Japan 9 SPM 444 110 Shigehisa & Lynn, 1991
Korea, South 9 SPM 107 106 Lynn & Song, 1994
Singapore 13 SPM 147 103 Lynn, 1977
Taiwan 9-12 SPM 2,496 105 Lynn, 1997I think Hitsquad is smarter than I am. I know he has a better information database from his college. Most importantly, he's far more patient. And I just spotted a mistake (I accidentally typed that IQ and per capita GDP correlate near 40%, when it's actually around 75%) so I'm letting him take this one. He's not saying anything I wouldn't have said.(BTW, the other posters on that thread - including Nachtwolf - haven't yet given answers to very basic questions about the data).
Well, Hitsquad's already asked you (exactly I would have asked) what races are you referring to?For now I merely note that repeated questions - to Nachtwolf and others - have yet to yield even a list of 'sub-Saharan' races (or east Asian ones for that matter).
Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Sub Saharan Africa has a number of African populations. You'll hear names like Bantu and Bushman or West African and East African, but largely it's a bunch of fuzzy boundaries. Genes flow from east to west, north to south, and the entire country has a blending of ethnic characteristics.
So, let me see if I understand what you have written:Nacthwolf wrote: When one group differs significantly from others on a given trait or traits (IQ for these discussions) then it is given a specific name; this is why East Asians and South Asians have different names. East Asians have 20 extra IQ points and a pronounced visuospatial/verbal disparity absent from South Asian IQ scores. To my understanding - and I don't have Lynn's book in front of me - the various African tribes differ radically on IQ but not for any racially identifiable reason.
There are ~50 separate authors mentioned in the 81 studies quoted by Lynn. There are ~50 signatories to the document jerryel quoted. There are ONLY TWO names on both (and even one of those may be a coincidence) - Lynn and Gilmore. What is going on in this field?Nereid wrote: d) Lynn and Raven – either alone or as lead author - account for just under half the studies Lynn presents; can any PF members give an example of an active area of modern scientific research where just two principals so dominate? The period spans over 50 years.
The Wall Street JournalOriginally posted by Nereid
When was this statement made?
It is a "controversial" and very popular book by Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein (who died shortly before it was published) and American Enterprise Institute economist Charles Murray. Herrnstein had previously made himself famous by being one of the "Head Start Wars" academics in the early 1970s and for writing an article (later published as a fleshed-out book of the same name) called IQ in the Meritocracy. I personally consider The Bell Curve to be part II of IQ in the Meritocracy -- sort of like Sylvester Stallone's Rambo was to his earlier First Blood -- Bigger, flashier and much more famous.What is "The Bell Curve"?
1994.If it is a book, when was it published?
In England, there is an abstract institution referred to as "the London school" of psychology, which in use generally implies the intellectual core group of the hereditarian school of psychology. It traces its roots back to Sir Francis Galton FRS, Charles Spearman, Sir Cyril Burt, and Hans Eysenck (the latest also signatory to the document we are discussing). Eysenck played mentor to Arthur Jensen (the world's most influencial hereditarian psychologist, one of the most prolific and frequently-cited scientists of all time, and also a signer to the document presently under discussion) when Jensen (an American) was doing his postdoctoral work overseas on a scholarship. Jensen kicked off the nature/nuture debate in 1969 with an article published in the Harvard Educational Review raising the heterodox question, "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?" Immediately thereafter, the word "Jensenism" was coined by the media to refer to the hereditarian position in the "nature/nurture" debate.All but four of the signatories are (were?) in US universities - there are two from institutions in London,
J. Philippe Rushton, of the U of Western Ontario, is a member -- along with Eysenck, Herrnstein (both of these first two posthumously), Rushton, Brand, Lynn, and Jensen -- of the g factor brat pack. He made himself famous in the late eighties with his work documenting consistent rank differences on over 60 variables from aboriginal sub-Saharan Africans on one end to East Asians on the other, and with Caucasians somewhere in between (though usually closer to the asians than the Africans). This work culminated in the 1996 publishing of the book Race, Evolution and Behavior.and two from the U of Western Ontario - why?
As far as I know, Jensen, as a rule, limits his conclusions about g heritability strictly to the United States.Is this statement intended to refer to "individual and group differences in intelligence" throughout the world, or just in the US?
Here are two of the datapoints in Lynn's work ("National IQ" and sample size; note that he did not do the research in either case):jerryel quoted: The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation).