The wealth of nations is mapped by their IQ

[Carlos Hernandez]

November 10, 2003

The wealth of nations is mapped by their IQ
By Glen Owen
Research says that intelligence is the largest factor behind economic success

A COUNTRY’S prosperity is closely related to the average IQ of its population, according to research that has mapped global intelligence levels.

The study of 60 countries identified a clear correlation between assessments of national mental ability and real gross domestic product, or GDP.

Complete text at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-888798,00.html

 

[Njorl]

Is there anything in the article disproving the inverse - that the IQ of nations is determined by their wealth?

Njorl

 

[jerryel]

A COUNTRY’S prosperity is closely related to the average IQ of its population, according to research that has mapped global intelligence levels. [/B]

So when can we expect the political changes in China to enable them to overtake the rest of the world?

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Njorl
Is there anything in the article disproving the inverse - that the IQ of nations is determined by their wealth?

Hear hear.

Perhaps because the IQ tests are created by people from wealthier nations, or because educated/well fed/physically healthy people do better on IQ tests?

 

[jerryel]

Originally posted by NateTG
Perhaps because the IQ tests are created by people from wealthier nations, or because educated/well fed/physically healthy people do better on IQ tests?

Perhaps? Many people have used that argument to dispute IQ testing but it isn't just one test that is given world-wide. The intelligent tests are based on the cultural aspects of the testee. Even people who don't know the difference between an "a" or a "z" and can't read are given tests they can understand orally (or sign language for the hearing impaired) based on their culture.

People who have never had a day in school and live in what the Western world defines as uncivilized have been found to be geniuses at the same rate as those who live in "civilization".

 

[NateTG]

Because it's unclear what IQ tests measure and how to scientifcally identify cultures, it's almost impossible to demonstrate that the tests do (or do not) have strong cultural biases.

It is certain that any particular IQ test is culturally biased since, for example, people speak different languages, but the literature argues that there is a 'fundemental quantity' that has a correlation to their results.

I expect that todays notions of IQ will be something like Alchemy in a few hunderd years -- a catalog of experiments and ideas that eventually lead to a science.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Is there anything in the article disproving the inverse - that the IQ of nations is determined by their wealth?

There's always a problem establishing causality from a raw correlation. To my understanding, the authors believe that IQ boosts wealth as well as vice versa. However, the "vice-versa" is more likely to be the secondary effect, for two reasons.

1. Within nations, intelligence is largely hereditary, and highly resistent to environmental influence.

2. Within nations,, a child's IQ better predicts his future Socio-Economic-Status than the SES under which he is born.

This suggests that average IQ has a greater impact on national wealth than the reverse.

It is certain that any particular IQ test is culturally biased

I'm sorry - this is untrue.

Lynn used Raven's Progressive Matrices to test for national IQs in his study. The Raven is a non verbal test which uses simple and universal geometric shapes to test for intelligence. While it is possible that there is some cultural loading on the Raven, most people find it difficult to imagine what is so culturally loaded about triangles and circles.


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

One factor that can affect it is age demographics. Because of high reproduction rates and short expected life times, many sub saharan African countries have populations heavily skewed towar the very young. The "average" member of such a population has not reached maturity. And IQ is known to increase during childhood and youth.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Achy47
Yeah, but what's their fashion IQ?

What is this "fashion" thing you speak of?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by jerryel
So when can we expect the political changes in China to enable them to overtake the rest of the world?

The US economists are already looking nervously over their shoulders. Have you any idea how many US manufacturing companies have switched their operations to China? Just this week the switch story was Etch-a-Sketch. when they get down to that level, you know it's endemic.

 

[Evo]

You can't equate IQ to success.

Yes, a person with a high IQ will normally have greater reasoning abilities and may comprehend, retain and utilize information easier than a person with a lower IQ, but, in my opinion, it is motivation, not IQ that determines how successful a person becomes academically or professionally.

A highly motivated person with a normal IQ may have to put more time and effort into learning, but they can still achieve as much or more than a person with a high IQ that is not motivated.

Years ago the TV show "60 Minutes" did a report on special schools for the "Academically Able", (elementary school age children with IQ's in excess of 140).

Although a few of these students went on to be doctors or lawyers, (nothing notable) most never achieved anything significant. Some were housewives, one was a belly dancer, another a short order cook, and so on.

Although they had high IQ's, they had no motivation.

 

[Nachtwolf]

You can't equate IQ to success.

No one is equating IQ with success. Instead Lynn is simply stating that more intelligent nations tend to be more successful, and his research solidly supports this.

it is motivation, not IQ that determines how successful a person becomes academically or professionally.

This is much like saying "it is velocity, not mass, which determines an object's kinetic energy." Clearly it's both, in the case of KE and in the case of success. Motivation without ability does not result in success, and to suggest otherwise is frankly absurd.

Years ago the TV show "60 Minutes" did a report on special schools for the "Academically Able", (elementary school age children with IQ's in excess of 140).

Although a few of these students went on to be doctors or lawyers, (nothing notable) most never achieved anything significant. Some were housewives, one was a belly dancer, another a short order cook, and so on.

I presume you are referring to Lewis Terman's study. Let me stress that even the 100 least successful individuals in his study earned slightly above the national average income. These are Terman's "failures," and they were still successful.

--Mark

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
No one is equating IQ with success. Instead Lynn is simply stating that more intelligent nations tend to be more successful, and his research solidly supports this.

I don't disagree with that. Perhaps I should have more correctly stated that IQ "alone" does not equate to success.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is motivation, not IQ that determines how successful a person becomes academically or professionally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


late night postings=poor wording. edit that to say "it is motivation combined with IQ"

quote -Motivation without ability does not result in success, and to suggest otherwise is frankly absurd.

I didn't say that. I said "A highly motivated person with a normal IQ may have to put more time and effort into learning, but they can still achieve as much or more than a person with a high IQ that is NOT MOTIVATED."

It is motivation in addition to IQ that determines how successful a person becomes. I am saying that there are other factors in addition to IQ that will determine what a person accomplishes. Just having a high IQ doesn’t mean much unless you use it. I know of a lot of people with high IQ’s that wasted their lives.

 

[Nachtwolf]

You might find this article interesting:

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/essays.htm --> The Outsiders

It explains why superhigh IQ types don't adjust well to modern society - they are isolated, alienated, and lonely. The optimum IQ for an individual is probably around 130, because it allows him to be successful without distancing him to the point where he feels cut off from humanity.

Also on the same site there is a discussion on personality factors and how they relate to behavior and success:

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Psychometrics --> The Big Five

The psychometric trait of Conscientiousness includes motivation or "achievement striving," and it has a great deal to do with success in academia and in the workforce; for instance, Conscientiousness explains why women get better grades even though their SAT scores aren't any better than mens' scores. Women score better on tests of Conscientiousness.


---Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

"Wasted their lives"? I think this exhibits a narrow view of why we live. Terman studied people who had scored extra high on IQ tests as teens. None of them was "successful" in the sense of being famous or important, or even rich. But they were ALL happy and satisfied with their lives. Based on that, maybe the "optimal" IQ 130 is just not smart enough to figure out what really counts.

 

[jerryel]

Originally posted by Evo
"A highly motivated person with a normal IQ may have to put more time and effort into learning, but they can still achieve as much or more than a person with a high IQ that is NOT MOTIVATED."

It is motivation in addition to IQ that determines how successful a person becomes. I am saying that there are other factors in addition to IQ that will determine what a person accomplishes. Just having a high IQ doesn’t mean much unless you use it. I know of a lot of people with high IQ’s that wasted their lives.

I don't want to get into a semantics war but "on the average" those with a higher IQ will be more economically successful. That is a fact.

But to measure "success" is impossible because you would have to define success. IMO success means happiness not the amount of money you earn. The poster in general is right about very high IQ folks having difficulties being successful economically, socially, or politically. Many of these people are utopian dreamers and lack the ability to accept the reality of human nature. They can’t lead because they can’t equate with the common man. The last I heard the highest IQ scoring individual in the US is a bouncer in a bar in California. He is a loner and reads every science type book he can get his hands on but how do we judge his "success"? He seems to be happy in his own way, has little use for socialization, lives decently, and although "odd" to most of us he may be happier than most us.

I know someone with a very high IQ who was a go-getter, succeeded early in life economically, sold his business at 41 and then just “quit” the BS world and became a campaigner for a return to the family values of old with public speaking and conservative political activism. He decided that money didn’t buy happiness but personal values did.

The attack on the validity of IQ scores is very evident on this forum by people who want to talk about exceptions instead of “on average”. IQ testing is probably the best way to foresee a young teen’s future success, a nation’s success, and cultural success. It may not be PC but it is fact and unless genetic engineering can come up with a better way it’s the only way we now have.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
"Wasted their lives"? I think this exhibits a narrow view of why we live. Terman studied people who had scored extra high on IQ tests as teens. None of them was "successful" in the sense of being famous or important, or even rich. But they were ALL happy and satisfied with their lives. Based on that, maybe the "optimal" IQ 130 is just not smart enough to figure out what really counts.

SelfAdjoint, I agree with all that you say, so I probably am not making my meaning clear.

Yes, from my personal experience, I've seen too many brilliant minds wasted. One is serving a life sentence for dealing heroin, he was class president, voted "most likely to succeed", several others became drug addicts and last I heard were in pretty bad shape, unable to hold steady jobs. Another commited suicide.

I have issues with what Carlos Hernandez and some others have been posting, implying that selective breeding to attain a larger population of individuals with high IQ's in the hopes of diminishing the ratio of "low IQ" people is the hope for the world.

I say that IQ alone doesn't guarantee anything. Does someone with a high IQ statistically have an advantage over someone with a low IQ? Of course.

Does a high IQ statistically result in a higher academic level and higher social & economic status? Of course.

Does this mean that a person of AVERAGE intelligence through perserverance, studying hard, and a will to learn and understand is incapable of achieving more than what would be expected of them? I don't think so. Obviously, they will not be able to attain the levels that a person with a higher IQ can achieve, but I do not think we need to selectively breed these people out of extinction.

This is what I have a problem with.

 

[jerryel]

Originally posted by Evo
I do not think we need to selectively breed these people out of extinction.
This is what I have a problem with.

In a democratic society which most of us believe in, it would be a voluntary eugenics program. Do you have a problem with that?

Nature's own eugenics program works well as long as society let's it work on its own. In every society on Earth, the most intelligent group rules in the long term, some democratically, most unfortunately not. Legalized abortion is a eugenics program created by society, which may or may not accomplish this goal but it does appear to be lessening the numbers of leftists in the future.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Legalized abortion is a eugenics program created by society, which may or may not accomplish this goal but it does appear to be lessening the numbers of leftists in the future.

Careful - "conservatism of social views" has been found to correlate inversely with psychometric g. I think it's clear that eugenics on a humane or even a purely voluntary scale is a good thing, but if eugenics successfully increases intelligence, it will increase the number of liberals, the number of small business owners, and the number of physics majors.


--Mark

 

[jerryel]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Careful - if eugenics successfully increases intelligence, it will increase the number of liberals

--Mark

Oh my...Then society is doomed.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Careful - "conservatism of social views" has been found to correlate inversely with psychometric g. I think it's clear that eugenics on a humane or even a purely voluntary scale is a good thing, but if eugenics successfully increases intelligence, it will increase the number of liberals, the number of small business owners, and the number of physics majors.


--Mark

Does the research take "Agreeableness" into account? I would think the more agreeable, the more Liberal.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I would think the more agreeable, the more Liberal.

But not, alas, the converse.

BTW, the usual disclaimers for The Rest of the World; liberal in the US means mildly leftist.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Oh my...Then society is doomed

Do you not know that eugenics was once a liberal concept? What could be more liberal that a push for social change and progress? It was only when the Marxist perversion made its way into the West that liberalism was corrupted.

Does the research take "Agreeableness" into account? I would think the more agreeable, the more Liberal.

That was originally my suspicion. However I have seen research demonstrating that while political conservatism is correlated at 10% with Conscientiousness, and political liberalism correlates at 30% with Openness, there is no significant relationship between liberalism and Agreeableness. Certainly I have (many times) been screamed at by a horde of deindividuated liberals for daring to question their sacred cows.


--Mark

 

[jerryel]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Do you not know that eugenics was once a liberal concept? What could be more liberal that a push for social change and progress?

--Mark

Maybe so but today's social programs are dysgenics at its worse, other than abortion of course. Feeding people in areas where nature's eugenic program would otherwise let them die only gives them the energy to create more children that will increase the need for more and more food to keep them alive. If the do-gooders really wanted to help they should relocate these people to areas where they can help produce the food they desparately need and provide abortion and birth control services.

It seems it is the most intellectually challenged folks of the world who are the most prolific breeders. Personally, I can't stand to see someone go hungry but there are limits to the world's food resources and capital.

 

[TENYEARS]

The ability to recognize more ways to to irresponsibly ravage the planet would definitely come under "so called" high IQ. Personally it is the state of the greatest unbalance. IQ is meaningless. All human beings have equal intelligence. This is reality. What is recoginzed as IQ is not a measure of intelligence. This I know and do not believe. I laugh at the scientific community. Sometimes quite often and especially when one reads the news and magazine headlines sometimes. What utter dopes. It makes me sick. Use your minds and act like there is no tomarrow. You will see them work properly then.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nice for you to always be so sure in your mind and never have to change it because you have been wrong. Be happy.

 

[Nachtwolf]

The ability to recognize more ways to to irresponsibly ravage the planet would definitely come under "so called" high IQ. Personally it is the state of the greatest unbalance. IQ is meaningless. All human beings have equal intelligence. This is reality. What is recoginzed as IQ is not a measure of intelligence. This I know and do not believe. I laugh at the scientific community. Sometimes quite often and especially when one reads the news and magazine headlines sometimes. What utter dopes. It makes me sick. Use your minds and act like there is no tomarrow. You will see them work properly then.

Hahahaha!

I love the part where you talk about the scientific community being dopes. Next you'll tell us that pro athletes are weaklings and Playboy centerfolds are ugly.


--Mark

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Another article on national IQ average and wealth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/message/28149

 

[TENYEARS]

My responses and questions are whatever you want or need them to be. That is what they will always be and nothing more. We have all been wrong at sometimes or another, some more than others. The question is when you were wrong what were you really doing? Don't challange me, challange yourself or else you may end up knocking youself out. After doing that enough you will eventually learn. That is the way of life.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
November 10, 2003

The wealth of nations is mapped by their IQ
By Glen Owen
Research says that intelligence is the largest factor behind economic success

A COUNTRY’S prosperity is closely related to the average IQ of its population, according to research that has mapped global intelligence levels.

The study of 60 countries identified a clear correlation between assessments of national mental ability and real gross domestic product, or GDP.

Complete text at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-888798,00.html

Here is the problem: We are not better off in the west because we have a larger economy. We are better off because we have human rights and liberty. People are in the habit of giving Capitalism the credit; but it is the idea put forth by blokes like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, notions concerning a free democracy and the ability of ppl. to make things better instead of waiting for the King to do it for them. Indeed, Capitalism can be credited with chipping away at these ideals, not creating them. IQ tests aren't required for us to *find* ppl. like Ben Franklin in order to benefit from them. Otherwise we wouldn't have seen the worlds first free democracy, which was America in 1776 and today is Canada... ;) Whatever the average IQ of a group; they are not in trouble because they're too stupid, they're in trouble because they are oppressed. Oppress Americans to the level that Rwandans and others in Africa are oppressed and Americans would look like a load of savages, too!

 

[jerryel]

Originally posted by Vosh
Here is the problem: We are not better off in the west because we have a larger economy...IQ tests aren't required for us to *find* ppl. like Ben Franklin in order to benefit from them...Whatever the average IQ of a group; they are not in trouble because they're too stupid, they're in trouble because they are oppressed. Oppress Americans to the level that Rwandans and others in Africa are oppressed and Americans would look like a load of savages, too!

So you don't think that high IQ and democracy go together along with the large economy? I don't think you can have one without the other. A population of high IQ people will demand democracy and produce martyrs to obtain it.

Rwanda has been ruled by a "tribe" which makes up only 14% of the population for centuries (except for short periods). Is it any wonder that that tribe has distinct physical and mental differences? Regardless, in the long run the people of superior intellect will always rule no matter where. That's why Stalin killed off the intellectuals to temporarily stave off nature's own devices.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by jerryel
A population of high IQ people will demand democracy and produce martyrs to obtain it.

It depends one what you mean by high IQ. Some high IQ's are conformist nazis (however unaware of it they are, and they usually are until history points them out). But if a way were found to guarantee that from now on all new borns would not have less than an IQ of 130 with that average being the convergance of all kinds of thinking, not just a freakish faculty for math while completely incompetent in other areas (verbal, interpersonal...); it's nice to imagine that the problem of the rank and file being so easily suckered by their more clever peers (the novel, "Animal Farm" describes this process very eloquently!) would be solved. However, right now there are plenty of folks with relatively high IQ's and no imagination at all thanks to their schooling and/or aptitudes and a slavish sense of dumb conformity.

Rwanda has been ruled by a "tribe" which makes up only 14% of the population for centuries (except for short periods). Is it any wonder that that tribe has distinct physical and mental differences?

Right. Give them everything the first Americans had, personal liberty and access to lending libraries (invented by Ben Franklin and a gang he was running around with in those days in 1731 -- read about it in his autobiography!) and the rest would take care of itself. But ppl. today don't know where they came from so when they try to fix places like Rwanda or the Middle East they try to apply todays values and todays values are NOT how America got started.

 

[Nachtwolf]

However, right now there are plenty of folks with relatively high IQ's and no imagination at all thanks to their schooling and/or aptitudes and a slavish sense of dumb conformity.

No, there aren't. IQ correlates at 30% with Openness to Experience and with some measures of Field Independence at almost 50%. Openness to Experience and Field Dependence both predispose a person towards challenging accepted wisdom, towards individualism, and towards free thinking.

Right. Give them everything the first Americans had, personal liberty and access to lending libraries (invented by Ben Franklin and a gang he was running around with in those days in 1731 -- read about it in his autobiography!) and the rest would take care of itself. But ppl. today don't know where they came from so when they try to fix places like Rwanda or the Middle East they try to apply todays values and todays values are NOT how America got started.

THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.

Do you seriously imagine that a group of borderline retarded people can institute democracy and attain a state of civilization? Can you name a single stable, civilized nation with an average IQ above 80? I repeat:

THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.


--Mark

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
No, there aren't. IQ correlates at 30% with Openness to Experience and with some measures of Field Independence at almost 50%. Openness to Experience and Field Dependence both predispose a person towards challenging accepted wisdom, towards individualism, and towards free thinking.

You should know that I don't speak your jargon, so I can't speak to it unless you translate. Also, this means that Bill Clinton was an average bear, after all. Wonder why folks thought he was so brilliant?

THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.

Why do you think that?

Do you seriously imagine that a group of borderline retarded people can institute democracy and attain a state of civilization?

Not when they are oppressed by those who are a little more clever. Those clever ones who know better are either out numbered or are not in charge of the army and the rank and file are too stupid to tell the difference. 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. Early Americans had to be manipulated and cajoled by the "founding fathers" into fighting the war for independence. If America fell under thug rule, folks wouldn't resist. They'd be just as confused as the rank and file in the east. There would just be more geniuses involved in the west. There may be a higher number of geniuses in the west than the east, but this doesn't account for the west being a nicer place to live. The west being a nicer place to live is why smart ppl. leave places like the Middle East and come here (and produce the illusion that foreigners are better at math -- no, it's just that we are seeing all the smart foreigners). As I say, if you're talking about *everyone* having an above average IQ, then they might be less likely to be manipulated by the smart pigs (see, "Animal Farm") but we don't know since this situation has never existed on Earth...

 

[jerryel]

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]

Thanks, that helps me to refrain from debating with you. This isn't a politics forum and if you think an avowed socialist (a neo-com) would make a good president then I have nothing to discuss with you.

If you would like to discuss IQ and it's importance (or non-importance) to human society then leave out the political comments.

 

[Nachtwolf]

You should know that I don't speak your jargon

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:

High IQ predisposes a person towards individualism and away from groupthink.

THE AVERAGE IQ IN AFRICA IS 70.

Why do you think that?

Because multiple studies found it to be true.

Not when they are oppressed by those who are a little more clever.

They aren't oppressed. But they are unintelligent.

If you would like to discuss IQ and it's importance (or non-importance) to human society then leave out the political comments.

Vosh doesn't understand those things, Jerry. He understands politics.


--Mark

 

[Nephtys]

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.

Besides, that can't be true for every scenario. 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.

 

[Nephtys]

Wait. Does this guy mean the people in charge or the average of the entire populace?

 

[Vosh]

Well, one person replied with a rhetorical (an assertion was made with zero supporting statements) political statement by way of telling me not to make political statement and another person suggested that the ppl. who live under thugocracies in Africa and the Middle East aren't oppressed. Some things one can say about the unintelligent come to mind: 1) They can't hear themselves. 2) Their feelings get hurt taking things personally and their egos get easily drawn into battles of will instead of constructive exchanges. 3) They see what they want to see (a life long consumer activist, someone who takes no contributions as a politician, trained in the law, self taught in chinese language, is the reason you can get into a minor auto accident and not get impaled on your steering column or torn to shreds by ordinary glass windshields, etc. etc. is probably just trying to turn America into the next Soviet Union but a self satisfied simian college cheerleader will save you and me from the baddies -- if only more ppl. would vote instead of just Homer Simpson and Fred Flintstone)

 

[Vosh]

And don't say, "this guy". It's a phrase "dumb guys" use when they're trying to engage in mean spirited psychological warfare.


*


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...

 

[Nachtwolf]

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.

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%.

Besides, that can't be true for every scenario.

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.

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.

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.

Wait. Does this guy mean the people in charge or the average of the entire populace?

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.

_______

if only more ppl. would vote instead of just Homer Simpson and Fred Flintstone

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.

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...

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?


--Mark

 

[Vosh]

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?

 

[TENYEARS]

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. One of you quoted something of the nature somewhere about a country of retarded people. Interesting. 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. I am a thinker, at times I am far beyond it. Human kind will pay by it's own hand. Mark my words. It's physics, even if you don't understand it quite yet. Merry christmas.

 

[TENYEARS]

Vosh, have a big glass of milk have a cookie and go to bed. Your idea of other countries being backward because of what they do not have is off the wall. Don't blame yourself, it is a belief used for a thousand years in order to extract riches from other countries with some attempt of a morality overlay for the general public. Most of these countries were far better off without us. 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. Just a pebble in a pile of pebbles. When your in school in and learning structured learning, there is sometimes not a lot of time to break down things and think of the conective nature of things.

 

[Nachtwolf]

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?

As a matter of fact, that's the common explanation for Ireland's IQ, which is under 95.

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 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.

"the Bush administration"... capitalism... war in Iraq... 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 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.

Yes, TenYears, tell us all how the findings of science are contrary to reality!

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.

Hahaha tell us all how to think in black and white, TenYears!

I am a thinker, at times I am far beyond it.

Oh, indeed!

Human kind will pay by it's own hand. Mark my words. It's physics, even if you don't understand it quite yet.

Eerything is physics. And no, this doesn't support your statements.

Vosh, have a big glass of milk have a cookie and go to bed. Your idea

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."

Thank you for bringing joy to my existence! Merry Christmas to you too!


--Mark

 

[jerryel]

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

Why do you bother? There are always clowns on sauce or sumtin' to disrupt good discussions.

It seems the term "IQ" has acquired the PC definition of a "dirty word" and racist at that. Any hint of IQ relating to any racial (they call it "culture" now) group now is attacked as being un-scientific and subjective and being promulgated by neo-nazis.

You can post peer reviewed studies until your fingers bleed and you will not change these peoples opinion. I quit trying.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4c610569be.htm

 

[Vosh]

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

 

[Monique]

Calling names does not fall under intelligent behaviour, please refrain from that in the future, OK?

 

[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.

 

[Vosh]

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.

I don't know anything about Lynn and Vanhanen (sp?) or their methods. I tend to agree that the only thing tests measure is your ability to take a test. Performance on a test can be significantly effected by a persons expectation of how they will score compared to someone else. In experiments, a black male of known superior IQ and a male Asian of known lesser IQ are put in a room where they take a test. Because the black male assumes that the Asian is terrific at Math etc. his performance on the test is very poor compared to the Asian subject who in turn scores very high because he expects himself to be smarter than his peer. I saw this on PBS once. Where else!? I forget what they named the phenomenon; but it's very interesting.

One thing I do believe is that smart ppl. tend to leave bad places to go and live in good places and that this causes a brain drain. I can believe it happens to entire countries and regions just as it happens in neighborhoods.

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.

Personally, I don't know why they bothered to write such a book. Psychologists, ppl. who run ad campaigns, captains of industry, politicians already understand that "most people are stupid". So who is the book for? The stupid ppl. won't get it, so it's not for them. Those who profit from the lowest common denominator already know, so it's not for them. I don't know who that leaves except the KKK.