Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Global national-IQ map posted at Children of Millennium

  1. Nov 19, 2004 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 22, 2004 #2
    What is this site? I clicked on gender studies and at the bottom it says:

    "The preceeding was taken from Misogyny Unlimited"

    Anyhow, I did a study on the failings of public high school in America (as well as the decline of our competitiveness in industry, esp science), and found that in the TIMSS (Third International Math and Science Study) that American students placed 19 out of 21 countries. They only beat 2 undeveloped countries. Our best students, AP, were found to fail just as bad when compared to AP (or the equivalent) students in other countries. I'm not exactly sure how IQ stats would correlate to these findings, but in any case, how were these measurements made?
  4. Nov 22, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    If you read down in the second link, you find that they are using Lynd's data. That data is not out and out false, but some of it is suspect. Note also that the site is frankly pro-eugenics.
  5. Nov 23, 2004 #4
    Is this information credible?
  6. Nov 23, 2004 #5
    TIMMS vs other international achievement studies

    Apparently, in the TIMSS, American kids may have not been ranked directly against kids from other nations:

    Richard Lynn reports in his book IQ and the Wealth of Nations that international differences in national math and science achievement are consistent with international differences in national IQ. His tables of national achievement show low-IQ nations doing poorly in math and science and high-IQ nations doing well in math and science.
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2004
  7. Nov 23, 2004 #6
    Maybe - but the implication I receive is that these 'national IQs' can be compared to each other. A sort of 'cause-effect deal.' Rather, it's more like a 'chicken-egg deal' IMO. Since environment AND genetics probably play a role in IQ test results we run into a major problem when comparing the 'national IQs' of developed and undeveloped countries. The 'heritability' of IQ results will be different for a developed country like the United States, with its relative wealth, mandatory education, public libraries, and internet connections - than it would be for an undeveloped country with none off these. Recall - western civilization witnessed its own dark age for a 1,000 years, despite an inheritance from the Greeks -
  8. Nov 23, 2004 #7
    Is this information all accurate? Some of it seems like it comes from a fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy.

    Acquiescence is inversely correlated.
    Leadership is correlated with intelligence.
    Psychoticism is inversely correlated with intelligence.

    Where are the traits recognizing the mental instability of many intelligent individuals? What about the tendancy of many intellectuals to sacrifice well being for ideologies? How many of these traits do not always have an inverse correlation with g? Does alcoholism, smoking, or prejudice always mean less intelligence?

    I have nothing against supporting intellectuals and giving them certain luxuries. However, this site seems to be trying to portray a superior view of intelligent individuals through desirable and undesirable social traits being listed with little scientific backing, reference, or links to further information that might present other opinions and more biological facts.

    I didn't take any offense, I'm just interested in the subject matter. Since I'm interested I like to ensure I'm reading accurate and well explained information.
  9. Nov 24, 2004 #8
  10. Nov 24, 2004 #9
    Then you might be interested in reading Arthur Jensen's The g Factor.
  11. Nov 27, 2004 #10
    The information referenced is consistent with the findings of the most respected psychometricians throughout the world. What is a "fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy?" The facts pertaining to intelligence are quite clear: smart people outperform dumb people on a statistical basis. They do this nationally, in schools, globally, and even within families. If one understands this truth does that make him a "fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy?" If so, you can count me in.

    Do you consider psychoticism to be a form of mental stability? If so, it is listed.
    This may be of interest to you:
    A Critical Review of Eysenck's Theory of Psychoticism and How it Relates to Creativity

    What about it? I don't follow your question. What are your thoughts on this?

    Are you confusing "correlation" with individual data points? A correlation is the slope of the regression curve. It does not imply that all data lie on the line, so there are exceptions. For example, lightness of eye color, lightness of hair color, and lightness of skin color all correlate positively with IQ, but there are obviously exceptions. Take a look at professor Walter Williams. This man is intelligent and successful, but is an exception to each of the weak correlations I just cited. Even in relatively strong correlations (such as brain volume) there are exceptions to the implications of the correlation for large groups.

    This group consists of people who are uninformed, misinformed and well informed. What is a "superior view of intelligent individuals?" If you used "superior" to mean more accurate, you will find that there are some people here who have a "more accurate" view than others. Hitsquad is one of them. I am one of them.

    Hitsquad has already recommended reading The _g_ Factor. The full reference is:
    Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Jensen has commented that he did not write this book at the undergraduate level. If you are a well educated scientist, you will not have difficulty understanding it. An older book by Jensen that goes into much more detail with respect to the instruments of testing is
    Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

    If you want to read something that is shorter and less demanding on the reader, I suggest
    Miele (2002) - Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen
  12. Dec 2, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Couldn't find the source for the data hitssquad, but seems to be the thoroughly discredited Lynn u Vanhannen (sp?) book. If so, then curiously Ireland and India get coloured differently, even tho' (IIRC) they have the same 'national IQ' in Lynn.

    What do you suppose a similar map, made using data of 50 or 100 years ago, would show?
  13. Dec 2, 2004 #12
    Children of Millennium's IQ-gradiant maps

    You just linked to it. Here it is again:

    • Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen presented average IQ scores for countries around the entire world for the Summer 2001 issue of Mankind Quarterly, which they had gathered for their 2002 book, IQ and the wealth of Nations.

      These figures have been used to create a color gradient as shown at right. (Click for full image.)

    Lynn does not list the same national IQ for Ireland and India. Table 8.9 (pp135-141) from Lynn and Vanhanen's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, as does the link above, lists Ireland's British-relative national IQ as 93 and India's British-relative national IQ as 81.

    I suppose that it would show that there was less international IQ data, compared with now, available 50 years ago and even less again available 100 years ago.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. Dec 2, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hmm, do you have hard data to show, for example, that this applies in (say) North Korea? in rural Mauritania? Also, your 'outperform' needs severe qualification; e.g. smart women most assuredly do NOT outperform dumb men in (for example) Saudi Arabia, and smart folk in rural China don't outperform dumb folk in Houston.
    I can't speak for Dooga, but it might have something to do with the fact that an awful lot of very intelligent people work in universities, where they manifestly are not 'outperforming' considerably less intelligent folk engaged in crime, becoming CEOs of Enron, Andersen, WorldCom, President of the USA, etc.
    Hmm, let's resume discussion of how 'accurate' these views are, shall we?
    Having at last started to go through this cannonical work of Jensen, I can heartily endorse your comment Mandrake - if you have the time and patience dear PF member or guest, do borrow it and read it ... carefully.

    So far, my own reading suggests it should become a classic, but not, perhaps, as its promoters would like. For example, it contains some of the most supremely ironic prose I've ever seen in a supposedly scientific work (read Jensen on 'intelligence', for example, and then look up the names of publications he's written in, and referenced in). However, for all my 'preconceptions amply validated', one does need to applaude some of Jensen's work ... the work referenced on determining that the 'g' of ECT studies is the same as the 'g' from IQ tests (I'm simplifying) is quite neat. Too, his insistence that his work has applicability only in the domain within which it has been undertaken (crudely, undergraduate students at US universities) is admirable - too bad that few of those who quote his work conveniently omit these caveats (and too bad that Jensen himself all too often forgets his own strictures).

    Among the many interesting facets of Jensen are:
    - purported interest in psychological variation among individual homo saps, but (willful?) ignorance of all such variation except in 'g' (Jensen's followers, such as apparently Mandrake, seem to exhibit similar blindness - e.g. 'psychometrics = studies of intelligence')
    - extraordinary readiness to reach for simplistic 'racial' correlates of 'g' (why not, say, blood type, or fondness of fondue?)
    - curious treatment of distributions (hitssquad has earlier quoted Jensen on whether g is distributed normally in a population) - curious because of Jensen's references to 'race', 'in-breeding depression', and 'hybrid vigour' (among other things)
    - apparent reluctance to perform (to my way of thinking) very simple tests of the 'biological' hypotheses for 'g' (e.g. depression of 'g' when drunk, age-related changes in brain physiology).
  15. Dec 2, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, now we have another apparent conflict ... as we discussed on these pages before, Lynn's website devoted to the book and the book (apparently, I've not seen a copy of the book) have different data (earlier we discussed Japan; this time we're discussing Ireland and India). Specifically, I recall Lynn's website gives both Ireland and India a national IQ of 87 (unfortunately, the interested reader cannot check this; apparently Lynn's website has been nuked).
    Would you care to comment on the Flynn effect hitssquad?
  16. Dec 2, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I recently learned of a very interesting, but largely forgotten, chapter in the 'IQ history book' ... the 'IQ' of the Afrikaans-speaking population of (today's) South Africa cf the English-speaking one.

    In a nutshell, in the early days, the Afrikaaners were thought to need 'special education', because their children showed a persistent and consistent depression of average IQ (vs the English colonials). However, after some years, the difference vanished. Kinda makes one want to ask what the historical average IQs of various groups in the US was, and compare them with today's data.
  17. Dec 3, 2004 #16
    one of my friends had a tested IQ of 175... how good is that... I heard its genius level..
  18. Dec 3, 2004 #17
    Lynn's data and sources for India's and Ireland's IQs

    Lynn's website does not seem to be devoted to any books. Lynn has a paper on his website...
    http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/articles.htm [Broken]

    ...that seems to have a theme similar to that of the book [URL [Broken] tg/detail/-/027597510X]IQ and the Wealth of Nations[/url].

    The (above-linked) paper Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations featured on Lynn's website has three tables with IQ data. Those tables are labeled Appendix 1, Table 3, and Table 4. http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm [Broken] (which seems to serve as a compendium of references for online Table 3 {and not for online Table 4, as I explain below}) shows IQ 81, 82, and 82 (from three different sources, respectively) for India and IQ 87 for Ireland.

    Lynn's book lists four IQ sources for India and two IQ sources for Ireland. Appendix 1 of his website article, however, only lists three sources for India and one source for Ireland. The online Table 3 seems to use only those sources listed in the online Appendix 1 whereas the online Table 4 may be using all of the sources that the book uses.

    Regarding Ireland's IQ, the Lynn's online article references only Raven 1981, whereas the book references both Raven 1981 (which provides a Flynn adjusted IQ 87 for Ireland) and Buj 1981 (which provides a Flynn-adjusted 98 IQ for Ireland). As Lynn says in the book, "The average of the two studies gives an IQ of 93 for Ireland."

    Regarding India's IQ, the four studies the book uses and the Flynn-adjusted IQs they respectively provide are Sinha 1968 (IQ 81), Rao and Reddy 1968 (IQ 82), Raven, Court and Raven 1996 (IQ 82), and Afzal 1988 (IQ 78). As Lynn says in the book, "The average of the four data sets gives an IQ of 81 for India." As can be seen from the online article's Appendix 1...
    http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/7-a1.htm [Broken]

    ...Afzal 1988 was left out of the references for India's IQ calculation. Leaving out Afzal 1988 would give a score of IQ 82 (which Lynn shows in online Table 3) instead of 81 as the book (and as the online Table 4) has. As noted above, Buj 1981 was left out of the online IQ references for Ireland (see above link). This would leave only Raven 1981 as an IQ reference for online Table 3, and online Table 3 agrees with that by showing IQ 87 for Ireland. Since online Table 4 seems to be using both Raven 1981 and Buj 1981 as IQ references for Ireland's IQ, it shows Ireland as having IQ 93 and thus agrees with the book which also uses those two references for Ireland's IQ.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  19. Dec 3, 2004 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ah, given the correlation between SES and IQ, I expect that she seriously 'outperforms' you, and may be on her way to being richer than Bill Gates!

    Seriously, if 1 sigma is 15, and the mean is 100, then 175 is 5 sigma above the mean, and only ~3 out of every 10 million people will have such an IQ (or higher). However, this assumes that the distribution about the mean is Gaussian, and as hitssquad will tell you, not even Jensen himself is prepared to state how far from Gaussian the observed distribution is.
  20. Dec 3, 2004 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks hitssquad.

    Let's dive a little deeper into this shall we (I'm guessing that you have the book to hand)?

    What are the *numbers of subjects *type of Raven test *age distribution of subjects and *place where the tests were performed? For each of the Irish and Indian studies. You probably don't have it in the literature available to you, but just in case you do *what is the distribution of the derived IQs (for each individual taking each test) *in what language(s) were the test instructions given *what are the native languages of the subjects *what measures were taken to ensure that all test subjects were in robust health/fully alert/not on drugs (this includes caffeine and nicotine)/etc *how does the demographic profile of the test subjects correspond with that of the national population (of the time)?

    Regarding the Flynn adjustment, can you tell us please what the studies into this say about differences in secular variation between countries? age groups? social classes? gender? type of job? (etc).

    Note to readers who may think that my questions are too pedantic: if you take the time to read Jensen's landmark work (the g factor), you will see that almost nothing is known about the biological basis of IQ, and that the vast majority of work involves extrapolating from a relatively small base of studies. In particular, 'psychometricians' appear quick to draw sweeping conclusions about IQ and 'race', yet astonishingly reluctant to admit that these conclusions involve heroic (shall we say) interpretations from shaky (shall we say) bases. I would urge you to read Lynn's website (hitssquad has provided the essential URLs) to get a flavour of this; if you get a chance to read Lynn and Vanhannen's book, would you be so kind as to tell us whether the book is equally amazing in these unfounded extrapolations?
  21. Dec 3, 2004 #20
    Actually it is a he... it is interesting to see that you assumed that it was a girl though..
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook