IQ Map of the World

[Flint Steel]

Derived from the IQ and the Wealth of nations data

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3540/iqbycountryjn0.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/IQ_by_Country.png/800px-IQ_by_Country.png)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

[Dan Dare]

I've always found it curious that the US has an average IQ as high as 98 given that over a third of the population is of non-European descent. Does the presence of a few million Ashkenazic Jews compensate for 30-odd million negroes and even more meso-Americans?

[Geist]

Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies.

For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.

I don't know much about such tests, but does nobody else find this sloppy?

[Geist]

The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[27] The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred.

!!!

A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13-16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5-17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6-12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10-14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.

!!!


The national IQ of Ethiopia was estimated from a study done on 250 fifteen years old Ethiopian Jews one year after their migration to Israel.

Apparently he got massive research funding for this work. I suspect the Pioneer Fund will overlook anything for the right results.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

I don't know much about such tests, but does nobody else find this sloppy?

It is sloppy.

Lynn's follow-up, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, uses less estimation and more test data.

[Winston]

It is sloppy.

Lynn's follow-up, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, uses less estimation and more test data.

I imagine the results aren't much different.

It's strange to see Europe split as it is in the above graphic.

[Felix the Cat]

Interesting, New Zealanders are cleverer than Australians?

[La Cosa Blanca]

All of the former Axis main players scored the highest...

[Felix the Cat]

The mean is warped by the extremes. It would only take a few people with an IQ of 200 to counter the effect of hundreds of thousands of morons.
Need to find some way of displaying the standard deviation on a map (maybe using lighter/darker shades of a particular colour). Or else use figures for mode/median instead of averages. I don't know the best way of doing this.

[Ahknaton]

Need to find some way of displaying the standard deviation on a map (maybe using lighter/darker shades of a particular colour). Or else use figures for mode/median instead of averages. I don't know the best way of doing this.
I agree. I don't really think the notion of a mean IQ is really meaningful, since IQ only indicates the relative position of someone's intelligence within the population. Concepts like "X's intelligence is greater/less than Y's" can be meaningfully applied to it, but it's not a scalar quantity where statements like "X 's intelligence is twice Y's" are meaningful. How many times more intelligent than a person with a 100 IQ is someone with a 200 IQ? The numbers say "twice as much" but I don't think that really reflects reality. Since statistical means only work for scalar quantities I don't think "mean IQ" means anything.

[Ahknaton]

All of the former Axis main players scored the highest...
Guess you can't win a war on IQ alone.

[Ahknaton]

Or when you send your most expendable to the front to die first, you have a positive eugenic effect when you lose. Most of the smartest people in Germany (as an example) at the time were in one metre thick steel reinforced concrete bunkers that bombs of that time couldn't crack.
The armed service with the highest mortality rate in WW2 was the airforce (I think the reverse is true these days). Pilots in the airforce had to meet some of the most exacting standards for intelligence, visual acuity and physical fitness. It seems extremely dysgenic to me to be killing them in droves.

[Amerika-jin]

There were extremely few pilots compared to soldiers in WW2 so I don't see how this can be compared. Regardless of this fact, if you had a very high intelligence you would be a scientist, not a pilot.

If you were an intelligent 18 year old during World War II, you probably wouldn't be in college...

[Skirnir]

If you were an intelligent 18 year old during World War II, you probably wouldn't be in college...

...but during Vietnam, one would be playing the exemption cards as did my stepfather. He told me about how he took fewer classes to delay completion of his degree.

[Valthurak]

No way Britain belongs with the chart toppers. It's northern Europe's 'tard corral over there.

[Raskolnikov]

No way Britain belongs with the chart toppers. It's northern Europe's 'tard corral over there.

Indoctrination doesn't affect IQ.

[Macrobius]

I agree. I don't really think the notion of a mean IQ is really meaningful, since IQ only indicates the relative position of someone's intelligence within the population. Concepts like "X's intelligence is greater/less than Y's" can be meaningfully applied to it, but it's not a scalar quantity where statements like "X 's intelligence is twice Y's" are meaningful. How many times more intelligent than a person with a 100 IQ is someone with a 200 IQ? The numbers say "twice as much" but I don't think that really reflects reality. Since statistical means only work for scalar quantities I don't think "mean IQ" means anything.

I guess the high-IQ answer to your question has to be Chebyshev's inequality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chebyshev's_inequality

According to Kamandi, who should know, IQ measurements are now more a matter of variance than 'mental age' ratios. I think 15 points is set to 'one standard deviation'. No guarantee that the distribution is normal, but it doesn't have to be. Chebyshev is quite general and answers -- just how special *is* X number of points.

[Helios Panoptes]

I guess the high-IQ answer to your question has to be Chebyshev's inequality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chebyshev's_inequality

According to Kamandi, who should know, IQ measurements are now more a matter of variance than 'mental age' ratios. I think 15 points is set to 'one standard deviation'. No guarantee that the distribution is normal, but it doesn't have to be. Chebyshev is quite general and answers -- just how special *is* X number of points.

It's 15 for Wechsler, 16 for Stanford Binet.

[Larrikin]

I don't know much about such tests, but does nobody else find this sloppy?
It's not sloppy, it's plain out nonsense both statiscally and methodically.

[Bulan]

Not trying to derail this thread here but Ashkenazim have the highest iq average according to what I have read.

However, through further assimilation the trend has begun to reverse or balance out in the past few decades or so...

Not saying any of that is factual...just what I have read on the web.
Everybody has different theories.

[Skirnir]

Verbal IQ they are high, though many here can make Ashkenazim look Sephardic :p

[Flint Steel]

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7783/iqwealthofntionsnq1.png

[Isra'il Yahya]

Does not education and nutrition affect IQ? If education became more rigorous and nutrition became better in some nations, would not the IQ improve?

[Brechun]

Does not education and nutrition affect IQ? If education became more rigorous and nutrition became better in some nations, would not the IQ improve?

Yes and yes.

Not trying to derail this thread here but Ashkenazim have the highest iq average according to what I have read.

However, through further assimilation the trend has begun to reverse or balance out in the past few decades or so...

Not saying any of that is factual...just what I have read on the web.
Everybody has different theories.

They're the highest measured group, sure. But there's likely certain ethnic groups in south asia that are equivalent to them, like the Parsiis. (only 70,000 of them, extraordinarily disproportionate levels of achievement) Don't buy anything you see on the IQ of India as a whole right now, especially from the Pioneer Fund- there's NO possible way to assess the IQ of a nation of 1 billion+ people right now, especially in such a disjointed country as that.

[Brechun]

I had a conversation with Jared Taylor not too long ago about an interesting correlation in the IQ score, of all the high IQ countries they all had a tough legal system at one time. I postulated that capital punishment might have had a positive eugenic effect. I'm still looking to see if this is the case but there is little evidence to back this assertion of mine up so it has always been at the back of my mind. With adequate time I would like to look into this some day.

Doubtful. That would require the death penalty to be an extremely frequent levels, and the idiotic idea of IQ being heavily correlated with criminality.

[Brechun]

For capital crimes IQ is heavily correlated with criminality. The average IQ of a murderer is in the lower 80-something IQ points area. From memory it was ~84. Note the "Ever incarcerated (men)" row.

That correlation has been hotly debated, and there was even a study from the APA I believe several years ago that said the correlation was very low. There's also how the majority of the most evil, destructive human beings in history have been of typically above average intelligence. You also have groups like the mongols who built the largest empire on earth on the backs of 30 million+ people killed in some of the most brutal fashions imaginable.

IQ doesn't seem to explain the ethnic differences in crime in the US too well either- hispanics are only 4 IQ points higher than blacks, yet aren't much less prone to criminality. I could really keep going.

[Empress Cheesatine]

I question the map of China... They're saying that rural Chinese subsistence farmers have higher IQs than the French?

:rofl:

[LeoAlbus]

Or when you send your most expendable to the front to die first, you have a positive eugenic effect when you lose. Most of the smartest people in Germany (as an example) at the time were in one metre thick steel reinforced concrete bunkers that bombs of that time couldn't crack.

Well yes that would be the reversed darwinism of it.

[KevinDeBurgh]

I think a 100 IQ should be the marker for who is human and who is not. Anyone below a 100 IQ should be thought of as subhuman. Also, I think white nations should strive for an average 105-110 IQ the same as NorthEast Asian countries. I can't find myself getting into White Nationalism unless White Nationalists start enforcing some legitimate IQ criteria and goals. While I don't have an IQ in the gifted range my IQ is still more in the range with NorthEast Asians and Ashkenazi Jews so I feel little loyalty or affinitity to white people as a whole due to this correlation. Although, I also have no affinity towards blacks or hispanics as well due to their IQ levels. I'm actually repulsed by black and hispanics : I don't like them at all on the whole.

_

[KevinDeBurgh]

Assuming a homogeneous population of white Europeans with an average IQ of 105 a large proportion of these people would still be 'subhuman' according to your definition.

Right, well in that case I think government of such a hypothetical nation should encourage people with IQs below 100 not to breed by giving them economic incentives to be sterilized or something like that. While people with average IQs of 105 and above should be given economic incentive to breed more by giving them large tax breaks for big families. Although, this might not work with 100% efficacy at first due to 'regression to the mean' after many generations the 'regression to the mean' phenomenon might gradually disappear or readjust itself to a higher plateau. Note these are just my opinions and ideas that will likely never come to fruition since I have no political power etc..

_

[<access denied>]

I think a 100 IQ should be the marker for who is human and who is not. Anyone below a 100 IQ should be thought of as subhuman.

I agree with this somewhat. While IQ is not a good indicator of extremely high intelligence, anyone who scores under 100 by current intelligence tests is a de facto imbecile - the exception is if they are dragged down by certain subtests, while scoring very highly in others. Low general intelligence, however, can be offset by other abilities, like specialized talents.

However, IQ tests are not necessary for most practical purposes as long as we have aptitude tests, like the GRE. In itself, high IQ is not a necessary or sufficient condition (although it is helpful), while knowledge and skills are at least necessary for any profession.

[Empress Cheesatine]

There will be a lot of highly intelligent people in the cities that would balance out the morons. I'm sceptical about china having such a high IQ, I'm willing to bet that the people who were tested were above the Chinese average and it was just laziness that they have scored so high so many times.

If Chinese IQs are that high then I question why so much of what they have today is nothing but rips of western technology.

[Joe McCarthy]

If Chinese IQs are that high then I question why so much of what they have today is nothing but rips of western technology.

The fact that Chinese peasants have such high IQs lends credence to the hereditarian thesis that intelligence is in part genetically based.

[Jesterian666]

The movie "Young Einstein" would have us believe that Tasmanians are even cleverer.


Interesting, New Zealanders are cleverer than Australians?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mkidP2OUCk

Great Southern Land, burn you black...

Like a runaway lost at sea...

[Impérialiste]

Small amounts at the lower end of the Bell Curve has very little effect. The average Black IQ isn't very high so it would imply the Hispanic IQ isn't very high either if we are only talking about 4 points.

I think the answer is obvious upon further reflection (Jared Taylor would probably agree as well). There's most certainly a stronger correlation between sociopathic personality disorders and crime; moreover, I have no doubt that the black race has a higher disposition toward this than the populations south of the border.

The beauty of IQ is one has a tremendous survival advantage in escaping crappy situations; if your fortune and luck happens to be subpar, a low IQ will make it difficult to escape bad situations. The United States has a major problem in education, however, because the institutional structure works off a quotas system. If you are functionally literate and even gifted (and those who are gifted will most certainly be functionally literate before the average ones), you earn yourself a check mark and no further attention shall be paid in maximizing one's potential. Therefore, the system caters to the mediocre - with an emphasis on the dregs of the system. That's asking for failure, and with regards to the cognitive elite (at least 1 z-score above the mean), it becomes more an environmental issue vis-a-vis fortune and luck in terms of future successes; that doesn't underscore the fact that those 1 z-score ahead tend to have good parents (though not all do, and those who don't tend to be "left behind" and make a living far less fruitful than they could have had the institutions had its priorities ordered more properly).

[Felix the Cat]

You can't fund an elitist educational system out of public taxation: voters will not support it

[Impérialiste]

I question the map of China... They're saying that rural Chinese subsistence farmers have higher IQs than the French?

:rofl:

I wouldn't be surprised by such results. It isn't that infrequent where first-generation Chinamen tend to outperform not only other first-generation immigrants (many of whom are total failures) but also other native Americans (i.e. at least a second-generation "Anglo"). Their SAT scores tend to be quite high, and they have a domineering presence in the more cognitively demanding occupations of America (engineering, physics, mathematics, scholarship).

If you're assessing your argument based off of historical trends vis-a-vis eminent accomplish that affect all of us to this day, your assessment would be full of misconceptions. Throughout the many eras of Europe, accomplishments have varied depending on the time. As for the cause of that, one could only inference based upon the varying historical epochs which hitherto surrounded a slew of published intellectual advances. There is most certainly a correlation between liberty and accomplishment. The fact that the Irish and Poles accomplished little to nothing out of those lands (largely due to lack of freedom), yet ethnic Irish and Poles accomplished much in freer lands, speaks volumes.

If we were the restrict the French domain to prior to the French Revolution, her population would have accomplishments but not nearly to the extent that one would assume (indeed, her accomplishments in the arts, for example, would be almost nil in comparison to post-French Revolution France). Similarly, China has had many periods of intellectual enlightenment (particularly the Song Dynasty, where it could be argued the Chinese were far ahead of the Europeans almost 1,700 years before the Industrial Revolution; a good example would be the Chinese mathematicians finding 4 numbers to the right of 3.14 for pi - which is significant - 1,700 years before the Europeans would; and, her advances in medicine far exceeded Europe's). To conceptualize my parenthetical note, consider how far gone Europe had become after the Greco-Roman world collapsed and how long it would take for Europe to rebound and absolutely decimate the world of thought via the Enlightenment. On an even more eerie note, consider the Russians accomplished almost nothing prior to the Russian Revolution but would accomplish far more later on (and though freedom was never truly permitted there, Russia did have the institutional necessities to accomplish what Russia never could under the Romanov Dynasty).

The question you want answer (indeed, you asserted) is the French are smarter than the Chinese. That's difficult to argue. Both have had periods of tremendous accomplishment, and both have had periods where they were comparable to the Irish's accomplishment done in Ireland. I think the French are easily more eminent historically than the Chinese, but the French have also largely had greater periods of liberty and more institutional structures which accommodated intellectuals. I have no doubt the Chinese will accomplish more in this coming century than the French will; indeed, other things equal, it'll be the Chinese Century for better or worse.

On an aside, the IQ tests were done with about a 1,000 people in the capital cities. Knowing and having been in Paris, I'd imagine the sample would be close to a bimodal distribution (a bunch of smart intellectual leftists and dumb Algerians and Africans). Beijing likely draws in the smarter pool, though I'm merely speculating. Nothing seems bizarre about those scores from anecdotal evidence.

[Impérialiste]

You can't fund an elitist educational system out of public taxation: voters will not support it

Of course, for the same reason even right-wing Republicans who hate poor people will never have the courage to support regressive taxation (though I'm uncertain if that policy would be economically beneficial, even if it'd have a positive eugenic effect).

[Kodos]

If we were the restrict the French domain to prior to the French Revolution, her population would have accomplishments but not nearly to the extent that one would assume

Was France really freer after the revolution? Among other things the Jacobians did was kill Anton Lavoisier.

Napolean got a large % of the male french population killed too.

[numba_one]

Of course, for the same reason even right-wing Republicans who hate poor people will never have the courage to support regressive taxation (though I'm uncertain if that policy would be economically beneficial, even if it'd have a positive eugenic effect).


It wouldn't have a positive eugenic effect. You think poor people in America would die just because they wouldn't get their welfare and medicare? How do you think poor people in India get by while still producing offspring like rabbits even though they're much more poor than the average American? The only thing that would happen is the poor in America would get poorer and probably riot and loot stores and then once they realized that the government wouldn't help them, they'd go back to their lives and have even more kids in order for their kids to be their social security/health care plan.

[President Barbicane]

It wouldn't have a positive eugenic effect. You think poor people in America would die just because they wouldn't get their welfare and medicare? How do you think poor people in India get by while still producing offspring like rabbits even though they're much more poor than the average American? The only thing that would happen is the poor in America would get poorer and probably riot and loot stores and then once they realized that the government wouldn't help them, they'd go back to their lives and have even more kids in order for their kids to be their social security/health care plan.

True. The only way to have a eugenic effect would be to sterilize welfare people. Right now we pay more money to welfare mothers who have more children. This should be reversed, and a woman who submits to sterilization should receive much more money.

[numba_one]

True. The only way to have a eugenic effect would be to sterilize welfare people. Right now we pay more money to welfare mothers who have more children. This should be reversed, and a woman who submits to sterilization should receive much more money.


Agreed. Paying poor people to get sterilized would actually have a positive eugenic effect but it would never happen because there are too many groups that would oppose such programs. Also, even if you did somehow manage to get it done, you'd still need to find a way to produce more offspring from the middle and upper classes in order to make up for the decrease in population. So, you'd have to pay middle or upper class people of high intelligence to have lots of kids.

[Brechun]

Here is an interesting article for you:

Studies show criminality is highly heritable

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902225_3.html?sid=ST2008042100610)



What about it? I would never deny a heritable component to criminality, and I don't see what's so special about this piece. There are innumerable studies on the heritability of criminality and other related traits. Their AVERAGE estimates vary quite widely. Plus, I was talking about the link between IQ and criminality.

[Petyr Baelish]

If Chinese IQs are that high then I question why so much of what they have today is nothing but rips of western technology.

The standard deviation of their IQ distribution is considerably lower (12 points for Orientals vs. 15-16 for Europeans). In other words, the Chinese population contains fewer people who fit on either tail of the IQ distribution (geniuses and morons, if you will). There is also a deficit of creativity, psychoticism and other personality traits that contribute to genius in East Asian populations; one must keep in mind that high IQ by itself does not mean that an individual will make significant contributions to any field of humans endeavor. There are plenty of individuals with extremely high IQs who spend their lives doing exceedingly ordinary things: practicing law, accounting, programming computers, writing SAT prep books, or even advice columns. This should be reiterated - high IQ and genius are not equivalent, although a high IQ is a prerequisite for genius.

It also bears pointing out that much of early Western technology (the compass, the printing press, firearms and explosives, among others) was nothing but rip-offs of Chinese innovations - it is only in the past few hundred years, a span of time quite insignificant in the context of Chinese history, that this situation has been reversed.

[Impérialiste]

It also bears pointing out that much of early Western technology (the compass, the printing press, firearms and explosives, among others) was nothing but rip-offs of Chinese innovations - it is only in the past few hundred years, a span of time quite insignificant in the context of Chinese history, that this situation has been reversed.

I have never understood the ripoff argument to begin with. The premise behind the argument is virtually empty and assumes a people can copyright an idea or even general technology. I'll presume the argument to be valid, and we'll deal with its resulting implications. The technology you cited is already one; certainly European history would have been vastly different without the printing press (and I'm pretty convinced the Protestant Reformation and even the Enlightenment would never have happened without it). That underscores the point, and it'd be superfluous to go further.

The premise and argument is eerily similar to the argument that "Nation A" should not trade with "Nation B" if "Nation A" has a competitive advantage in producing both goods a and b. The problem with that argument (David Ricardo debunked this) is "Nation A" would benefit more by specializing in good a, whilst "Nation B" specializes in good b, which would decrease costs for good a; and, "Nation B" would gain more of good a without sacrificing too much - in sum, both win as a result.

The argument against the Chinese that they're ripping off Western technologies and thereby aren't smart (or whatever is being inferred) is pretty weak. The argument assumes constancy, which as the above poster pointed out, isn't really there; both the East and the West have had vastly disproportional technological advantages at varying points (which the same could never have been said about Sub-Saharan Africans). Two, Europeans would be far worse off without the Chinese, just as the Chinese would be far worse off without Europeans; both benefit from the existence of each, as the trade example shows. Three, the historical ignorance of it all is just deafening. The Chinese have had to deal with Western exploitation like most other peoples around the world, and the Chinese have been one of the few to actually walk away having been better off for doing so. And a sub-issue of this is the fact that the Chinese, especially around the time of the Opium Wars, had rarely bothered anyone (Genghis Khan being a major exception) and have been a closed society for centuries. Obviously times have changed, and the causation can at least partly be attributed to an Anglo-led Western imposition for China to open her markets (indeed, FDR's issue with Japan was precisely that, and it could be argued China opening her markets was in America's interest).

[Impérialiste]

IQ is also highly heritable so why can there no be a link between IQ and criminality?

You're right. That's what's special behind the meta-analysis, which really meshes all the confounding variables into one nice correlation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis

[Brechun]

The standard deviation of their IQ distribution is considerably lower (12 points for Orientals vs. 15-16 for Europeans). In other words, the Chinese population contains fewer people who fit on either tail of the IQ distribution (geniuses and morons, if you will).

There's never been any evidence of this. Ever. IQ distributions hover around 15 points in every human population, and I don't see how they could be expected to have such "strong", fixed variations among human ethnic groups when brain size has the same correlations with IQ throughout the primate order.

IQ is also highly heritable so why can there no be a link between IQ and criminality?

Most studies show an average heritability of 50% in first-world populations. But I don't know what you're getting at. You say both are highly heritable, so therefore they must have big causational links with eachother?

[Impérialiste]

If we were the restrict the French domain to prior to the French Revolution, her population would have accomplishments but not nearly to the extent that one would assume

Was France really freer after the revolution? Among other things the Jacobians did was kill Anton Lavoisier.

Napolean got a large % of the male french population killed too.

Sorry about responding so lately. I'm busy nowadays and put the Phora on a lower priority than I used to.

To establish this argument, I think a set would be appropriate. Consider:

Freedom {economic, cultural, educational, legal, . . .}

When considering educational, cultural, and economic freedoms, all have exponentially increased since the French Revolution. Legal freedom is debatable, though I think it's an easy argument to make that if post-Revolutionary France hasn't had true legal freedom, it was rarely, if ever, less than the legal freedom under Bourbon France. Let's get serious.

Antoine de Lavoisier was certainly a tragedy and is one of the great science thinkers in history. But benefits and costs must be considered, and I don't think de Lavoisier happens to compensate for Hugo, Poincare, Flaubert, and virtually every other great thinker who has come out since. The fact is prior to the Revolution, approximately 2% of the population freedom in nearly every avenue, and the rest of the 98% were stuck working the fields and not having any resultant leisure time to pursue intellectual activities. Class mobility is very important in just having the time and hopefully the resources - which come from being a recognized genius - and the resulting crises ultimately paved the way in the long run for that (something which most certainly would never have occurred under the Bourbon Dynasty or even a reformed one; Louis-Philippe sort of learned but really didn't. And Napoleon III wasn't much better. The key to those leaders is they often provoked thinkers to resonate, and Flaubert was another one to respond to certain cultural sensibilities that would be regarded as regressive nowadays (though that's always debatable).

It'd be an interesting study to conduct and see how many of the post-French Revolution thinkers had a strong enough linkage to that 2% of the aristocratic and cleric class of the pre-French Revolution. My bet, just by simple intuition based off of statistics, would be not too many came from such a pernicious and useless class that ultimately robbed the nation of thinkers time and time again. As any literary professor will argue (and validly so), most great writers resonated from the middle class (a class which had not existed prior to the French Revolution). Charles Murray would agree as well.

Whether or not the French Revolution was ultimately harmful or not to Western Civilization is an aside and an entire debate. If the French Revolution was harmful, then one must consider another means for how reform could have been done whilst decreasing its side effects (the tyranny, the beheadings, the geopolitical instabilities, the rise of nationalism, and socialism). That could have been done via a Constitutional Monarchy, but even that's debatable. At the end of the day, one must consider whether the Bourbon Dynasty was really all that negotiable. If they weren't, then it's arguable the French Revolution had to happen as it did. Certainly a power vacuum was bound to happen, so we can choose Napoleon Bonaparte or a nameless aristocrat who we'll never know unless we can someday learn to manipulate events with respect to time and see its resulting ramifications. Regardless, no one could argue French intellectuals did less after the French Revolution than before.

As far as Napoleon and the amount killed, you're ignoring a lot once one realizes France had continually been in a state of war prior to him for centuries. And in terms of opportunity costs, the birth rate was really high in the 1800s, which is a byproduct of economic freedom in general and the resulting impact of the Industrial Revolution in particular (not the least of which Napoleon and birthrates fit somewhere in that mix). On opportunity costs, under the Bourbon Dynasty, I don't think birth rate would have been nearly as high (people tend not to produce when severely impoverished, at least in France). And by not having births, one can equate that with death as well.

And technologies in general, along with poor political policy, led to an logarithmically higher death rate than anything Napoleon had ever done (consider the Crimean War, Franco-Austrian War, Franco-Prussian, both World Wars, the Spanish Influenza, and the result of us living in an age of "Collective Security" and globalization).

[Impérialiste]

There's never been any evidence of this. Ever. IQ distributions hover around 15 points in every human population, and I don't see how they could be expected to have such "strong", fixed variations among human ethnic groups when brain size has the same correlations with IQ throughout the primate order.



Most studies show an average heritability of 50% in first-world populations. But I don't know what you're getting at. You say both are highly heritable, so therefore they must have big causational links with eachother?

I have to leave now but will address this tonight mathematically. You're wrong.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

It also bears pointing out that much of early Western technology (the compass, the printing press, firearms and explosives, among others) was nothing but rip-offs of Chinese innovations - it is only in the past few hundred years, a span of time quite insignificant in the context of Chinese history, that this situation has been reversed.

Good post, one quibble though. The Gutenberg press was developed independently of any knowledge of the Chinese block press and was considerably more efficient and useful. China beat Europe to the invention of a press, but all modern printing presses (including in China) are derived from the Gutenberg press.

[Petyr Baelish]

There's never been any evidence of this. Ever. IQ distributions hover around 15 points in every human population...

Very few things irritate me more than invinvible ignorance masquerading as omniscience. Just because you know nothing (and apparently, understand even less) about the research in this area, does not mean that the SD of IQ distributions don't vary in different human populations. For instance, data from American studies shows quite unequivocally that blacks and whites differ significantly in their IQ variability. For instance, the SD for the white standardization on the WISC-R is 14.08, the black standardization, 12.75 (Source (http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_reply.html)). Some data even shows high inter-group variability in IQ distributions of European ethnic groups, with CCFT SDs ranging from 35.2 for Italians to 11.6 for Norwegians (Source (http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/greekiq/)). As for Orientals, I can't think of any studies off the top of my head, but in a personal communication Dr. Lynn wrote to me that some Japanese IQ samples display lower SDs than European standardizations. This is to be expected of course, given that East Asians are much more homogenous than Europids in virtually all genotypic and phenotypic traits, such as pigmentation, height, craniological measurements, genetic variability, etc... It is also a parsimonious and predictive hypothesis vis-a-vis the glaring under-representation of Oriental contributors in intellectual innovation.

And I don't see how they could be expected to have such "strong", fixed variations among human ethnic groups when brain size has the same correlations with IQ throughout the primate order.

Assuming that you're willing to listen, I can rectify your ignorance, but increasing your intelligence is beyond my abilities.

[Brechun]

Very few things irritate me more than invinvible ignorance masquerading as omniscience. Just because you know nothing (and apparently, understand even less) about the research in this area, does not mean that the SD of IQ distributions don't vary in different human populations. For instance, data from American studies shows quite unequivocally that blacks and whites differ significantly in their IQ variability. For instance, the SD for the white standardization on the WISC-R is 14.08, the black standardization, 12.75 (Source (http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_reply.html)).

You should have read more carefully yourself before you went off on this huffed-up tangent, though I guess I should have been a bit clearer. I DID say they could vary, but they're almost ALWAYS around 15 points, nearly all the time ranging from as low as 12 to as high as 18. IQ variation is pretty much due to a wide variety of variable breeding patterns within a population. It's rare you'd find a population that hovers perfectly at an SD of 15 for any appreciable amount of time. And with all of this, I'm talking about large-scale population samples, numbering in the tens of thousands or more with representative, consistent samples.

Some data even shows high inter-group variability in IQ distributions of European ethnic groups, with CCFT SDs ranging from 35.2 for Italians to 11.6 for Norwegians (Source (http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/greekiq/)).

If you actually really read that, that was only for the CAPITAL CITIES of their respective nations, with 1 person for every 40,000 people over a period of 5 years. That's about several hundred to around 1,000 for each city. Maybe even way less. With an age range of 16-60. Hardly representative of those nations, and with such a range as large as 14 points for the Norwegians and the Swedes, it's completely doubtful there'd be any proper division of the sample sizes.

As for Orientals, I can't think of any studies off the top of my head, but in a personal communication Dr. Lynn wrote to me that some Japanese IQ samples display lower SDs than European standardizations.

"Some".

Not that I don't find the idea of east asians having a smaller SD improbable, but not under the model you're pushing off.

This is to be expected of course, given that East Asians are much more homogenous than Europids in virtually all genotypic and phenotypic traits, such as pigmentation, height, craniological measurements, genetic variability, etc...

What the hell does homogeneity have to do with IQ variation? I've always wondered what the explanation of racialists who push off the IQ SD variation line (who don't know it to be related to breeding patterns) think it could be due to, so is this your reason for it?

What, do you think italians are one of the most heterogenous people on Earth or what? And Norwegians the same as east asians?

It is also a parsimonious and predictive hypothesis vis-a-vis the glaring under-representation of Oriental contributors in intellectual innovation.

It could be a factor, but not much of one when you once again look at it being tied to breeding patterns.

Assuming that you're willing to listen, I can rectify your ignorance, but increasing your intelligence is beyond my abilities.

Ok, have fun.

[Winston]

I came across this chart a while ago. I'm not sure where the data comes from, and the annotation doesn't exactly mark it out as authoritative, but I will say that all this talk of East Asian homogeneity and a tighter IQ grouping with fewer outliers makes perfect sense and fits with what we can observe of Orientals.

http://i39.tinypic.com/33f5boo.gif

[Brechun]

I came across this chart a while ago. I'm not sure where the data comes from, and the annotation doesn't exactly mark it out as authoritative, but I will say that all this talk of East Asian homogeneity and a tighter IQ grouping with fewer outliers makes perfect sense and fits with what we can observe of Orientals.

http://i39.tinypic.com/33f5boo.gif

It comes from La Griffe Du Lion, which he pulled out of his ass via the first edition of IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

[Petyr Baelish]

You should have read more carefully yourself before you went off on this huffed-up tangent, though I guess I should have been a bit clearer.

You half-baked attempt at back-pedaling to save face actually winds up making you seem even more of an idiot. Observe.

I DID say they could vary [...].

No. I said this:

The standard deviation of their IQ distribution is considerably lower (12 points for Orientals vs. 15-16 for Europeans). In other words, the Chinese population contains fewer people who fit on either tail of the IQ distribution (geniuses and morons, if you will).

To which you responded with:

There's never been any evidence of this. Ever.

Notice that the figures I cite, 12 and 15 points, respectively, fall within the 12 to 18 point range you now disingenuously claim to have acknowledged. If you had claimed that inter-group variation in standard deviations has a range of 12-18 points, you would not have raised an issue with my claim, which fell within those figures. Now, you're hoping that the readers of these forae are a stupid as you are, and consequently won't notice your ham-fisted deception. I know better, but will point out your stupidity and deceit for the benefit of the gallery in any case.

but they're almost ALWAYS around 15 points, nearly all the time ranging from as low as 12 to as high as 18.

This is completely irrelevant for the purposes of the claim I am advancing, imbecile. Seemingly 'small' variations in average IQ or standard deviations can have very significant effects on the tails of the IQ distribution. For instance, a 3 point difference in average IQ translates into a 30-fold disparity in the number of people deviating 58 points to the left or right of the distribution. A standard deviation variance of 1.5 points translates into an even more dramatic skew of the tails.

It's rare you'd find a population that hovers perfectly at an SD of 15 for any appreciable amount of time. And with all of this, I'm talking about large-scale population samples, numbering in the tens of thousands or more with representative, consistent samples.

Blah, blah, blah. Not only is the above completely irrelevant, it shows that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of statistics. An IQ standardization need not consist of tens of thousands of individuals to be perfectly representative of a population, but given the sort of comprehension you've already demonstrated, it would be a complete waste of my time to try to explain to you why this is the case.

If you actually really read that, that was only for the CAPITAL CITIES of their respective nations, with 1 person for every 40,000 people over a period of 5 years. That's about several hundred to around 1,000 for each city.

As I pointed out above, your sophomoric criticisms of the authors statistical methods are completely irrelevant. I would advise you to actually take a statistics class or two, before you start spouting condemnations of perfectly sound methodology making yourself look like a complete dunce. As per your other criticisms, it is also perfectly irrelevant. I am well aware that the IQs of cities tend to be above national averages, but given the demographics of Europe, this point is moot. For instance, close to 40% of the population of Greece lives in the metropolitan area of Athens: therefore, to suggest that Athenians are somehow an unrepresentative, elite section of the population is absurd. The rest of the nations examined in this study are likewise so heavily urbanized that the urban IQ is for all intents and purposes equivalent to the national IQ. In any event, like your other criticisms, this one is not really germane, as it has no bearing on the issue I raised, namely the fact that the SD of European populations' IQ distributions differ significantly.

What the hell does homogeneity have to do with IQ variation?

I don't expect you to understand this, but I'll explain it for the benefit of the gallery anyway. A homogeneous distribution is one with a relatively low standard deviation. A heterogeneous distribution is one with a relatively high standard deviation. In essence, what you are asking me is "What the hell does lack of variation have to do with IQ variation?". Stop for a second and think about how utterly idiotic a question that is. Now, societies that are highly heterogeneous genetically and socioeconomically, such as the US, will naturally have heterogeneous IQ distributions. Societies with low levels of genetic and socioeconomic heterogeneity, like Japan and South Korea, will tend to be homogeneous in other traits, such as IQ. I really can't explain it in terms much simpler that this. If it goes over your head, as I unfortunately think it will, you really have no business posting in this discussion to begin with. Then again, your comments above seem to have established that fact quite firmly.

[Brechun]

You half-baked attempt at back-pedaling to save face actually winds up making you seem even more of an idiot. Observe.

That wasn't back-pedaling, prick. I was only admitting I should have been clearer.

No. I said this:

The standard deviation of their IQ distribution is considerably lower (12 points for Orientals vs. 15-16 for Europeans). In other words, the Chinese population contains fewer people who fit on either tail of the IQ distribution (geniuses and morons, if you will).

To which you responded with:

There's never been any evidence of this. Ever.

Notice that the figures I cite, 12 and 15 points, respectively, fall within the 12 to 18 point range you now disingenuously claim to have acknowledged.

I've known of the 12-18 point range for a long time, contrary to you thinking I just brought it up now. You don't know a damn thing about me.

If you had claimed that inter-group variation in standard deviations has a range of 12-18 points, you would not have raised an issue with my claim, which fell within those figures.

I've only raised an issue with you because of your explanation for the differences in IQ variation- where I clam it's due to population differences in breeding patterns (which it is), you claim it's due to this idiotic idea of genetic diversity being linked to IQ variation, thus making it fixed and only changeable via changes in their genetic makeup.

Either way, this whole thing has also been about the idea of the 1 billion+ east asians on the planet collectively having a lower IQ distribution, which your best evidence for is Richard Lynn mentioning several japanese samples with lower distributions.

Now, you're hoping that the readers of these forae are a stupid as you are, and consequently won't notice your ham-fisted deception. I know better, but will point out your stupidity and deceit for the benefit of the gallery in any case.

I've simply made a small effort of pointing out how you're wrong about this. You're now on an immense high-horse screaming about stupid and ignorant I am like an arrogant asshole.

This is completely irrelevant for the purposes of the claim I am advancing, imbecile. Seemingly 'small' variations in average IQ or standard deviations can have very significant effects on the tails of the IQ distribution. For instance, a 3 point difference in average IQ translates into a 30-fold disparity in the number of people deviating 58 points to the left or right of the distribution. A standard deviation variance of 1.5 points translates into an even more dramatic skew of the tails.

I know this.

Blah, blah, blah. Not only is the above completely irrelevant, it shows that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of statistics. An IQ standardization need not consist of tens of thousands of individuals to be perfectly representative of a population, but given the sort of comprehension you've already demonstrated, it would be a complete waste of my time to try to explain to you why this is the case.

Are you fucking serious? Are you REALLY saying the samples of several hundred to around a thousand are in that study are just as representative as a sample of tens of thousands for a population numbering in the hundreds of thousands or millions?

As I pointed out above, your sophomoric criticisms of the authors statistical methods are completely irrelevant. I would advise you to actually take a statistics class or two, before you start spouting condemnations of perfectly sound methodology making yourself look like a complete dunce.

Please tell me how using several hundred to a thousand people as samples of countries numbering the millions is "sound".

As per your other criticisms, it is also perfectly irrelevant. I am well aware that the IQs of cities tend to be above national averages, but given the demographics of Europe, this point is moot. For instance, close to 40% of the population of Greece lives in the metropolitan area of Athens: therefore, to suggest that Athenians are somehow an unrepresentative, elite section of the population is absurd. The rest of the nations examined in this study are likewise so heavily urbanized that the urban IQ is for all intents and purposes equivalent to the national IQ.

This is just about Greece and Athens then. Tell me, how many other European countries have a similar urban distribution to Greece? And again, could you please fucking tell me how several hundred to a thousand people is remotely representative of countries numbering in the millions?

Not too hopeful on an answer here other than more of your intellectual masturbation on how stupid and ignorant I am.

I don't expect you to understand this, but I'll explain it for the benefit of the gallery anyway. A homogeneous distribution is one with a relatively low standard deviation. A heterogeneous distribution is one with a relatively high standard deviation. In essence, what you are asking me is "What the hell does lack of variation have to do with IQ variation?". Stop for a second and think about how utterly idiotic a question that is. Now, societies that are highly heterogeneous genetically and socioeconomically, such as the US, will naturally have heterogeneous IQ distributions. Societies with low levels of genetic and socioeconomic heterogeneity, like Japan and South Korea, will tend to be homogeneous in other traits, such as IQ. I really can't explain it in terms much simpler that this.

No, I really think YOU need to stop and think how idiotic AND nonsensical the argument you're pushing off is. How the living FUCK does a population's genetic diversity translate to a greater variation in IQ? Do you have genetic studies linking this? Anything at all?

If it goes over your head, as I unfortunately think it will, you really have no business posting in this discussion to begin with. Then again, your comments above seem to have established that fact quite firmly.

Do you get aroused over the sound of your own name?

Which Lynn got from James Robert Flynn, a so-called "anti-racist".

No, they came from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_and_the_wealth_of_nations#Criticism

I really love the one for equatorial guinea, where he used a sample of about 40 kids in some European country with known developmental disabilities.

[Brechun]

Have you even read IQ and the Wealth of Nations? It says that the original data sets came from Flynn but there were a lot of missing countries so they tried their best to estimate where they could using any available data.

I didn't know that tidbit about IQ&TWON with Flynn, but I don't see what how that exscuses their ridiculous way of handling estimates for countries with no IQ data.

The reality is that Africa is a basket case, it would be too difficult to get every child to sit down to take an SAT or IQ test so you have to take what you can get.

I wouldn't expect anyone in this day and age to get estimates of a country's IQ, much less a continent, by examining every single child around. What Lynn and Vanhanen did with that work, however, was profoundly dishonest.

I know Lynn's gone and built upon his work there with newer books in the past several years though.

[Petyr Baelish]

It is common knowledge among cognitive and educational psychologists that certain concepts are completely beyond the comprehension of people with limited cognitive abilities, no matter how hard one tries to simpify or compartmentalize these concepts into easily digestible units. For instance, someone with an IQ of 90 will never understand linear algebra. I am beginning to suspect that I am dealing with something similar in your case. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are being intentionally obtuse to irritate and troll me, and are not as lamentably dull as your responses to my posts would seem to indicate, but I don't hold out much hope. I will try to explain to you again where the most glaring stupidities lie in your posts, and hope that you will understand and cease making a fool of yourself. If you respond with another trolling post, I will no longer answer your obvious provocations.

That wasn't back-pedaling, prick. I was only admitting I should have been clearer.

Again, let's examine the issue, for the benefit of the gallery.

I made this claim:

The standard deviation of their IQ distribution is considerably lower (12 points for Orientals vs. 15-16 for Europeans). In other words, the Chinese population contains fewer people who fit on either tail of the IQ distribution (geniuses and morons, if you will).

You responded with (emphasis mine):

There's never been any evidence of this. Ever.

I posted evidence to refute your claim:


Evidence (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=658183&postcount=66)

You responded with this glaring bit of backpedaling:

You should have read more carefully yourself before you went off on this huffed-up tangent, though I guess I should have been a bit clearer. I DID say they could vary, but they're almost ALWAYS around 15 points, nearly all the time ranging from as low as 12 to as high as 18

You made yourself seem especially stupid with this statement:

[T]hey're almost ALWAYS around 15 points, nearly all the time ranging from as low as 12 to as high as 18[..]

This is obviously moot, for several reasons. First, the figures I cited fit well within your 12-18 point range. Second, as I pointed out, my claims concern only the tails of the IQ distribution. Even a very small variation in standard deviations can make a huge difference in the frequency of extremely intelligent and extremely dull individuals - for the purposes of the tails of the IQ distribution, the difference between a standard deviation of 12 and a standard deviation of 18 is nothing short of astronomical.

I've known of the 12-18 point range for a long time, contrary to you thinking I just brought it up now.


If you had known that there were real differences in the standard deviations of the IQ distributions of different populations, when even very small differences radically skew the frequency of highly deviant individuals you would not have raised issue with my claims. Obviously, you only started backpedaling when I cited some research that refuted your claim, your claim being that no such differences exist. However, even when you backpedaled, amending your claim to something along the lines of "sure, there are differences, but they are small. The range is 12 to 18 points. That's like what, only 6 points?" you failed to realize that even a seemingly 'tiny' difference in standard deviation will have large repercussions on the tails, the only part of the IQ distribution that my argument concerned itself with. As I said, as far as the frequency of individuals with extremely high IQs (let's say, 160 points), the difference between a standard deviation of 14 and a standard deviation of 15 is highly significant. The difference between an SD of 12 and an SD of 18 is astronomical. Therefore, your argument is completely specious and irrelevant.

You don't know a damn thing about me.

Really? I can say at least two things about you with complete certainty:

1. You're a shameless liar.

2. You're not bright enough to realize when you've been caught in a lie.


I've only raised an issue with you because of your explanation for the differences in IQ variation- where I clam it's due to population differences in breeding patterns (which it is)

First of all, I did not make any explanation for differences in IQ variation between different racial groups. I merely pointed out that such differences undoubtedly exist, which you promptly denied, and then posited that, in the case of Orientals, this may be related to lower genetic variation (which is a perfectly sound argument). You, on the other hand, just now pulled this whole "differences in breeding patterns" thing out of your ass, never even bothering to explain, what, precisely, these differences are, nor cite any evidence on their impact upon IQ variation.

You haven't even elucidated on what exactly these difference you claim it's due to this idiotic idea of genetic diversity being linked to IQ

Lower levels of genomic and prototypical variation in a whole array of traits, including virtually all traits correlated with intelligence, would seem to me to imply a somewhat lower level of variation in intelligence itself. I fail to see how such an implication is 'idiotic', but you seem to use the term as a catch-all for anything you don't like, disagree with, or don't understand.

[T]making it fixed and only changeable via changes in their genetic makeup.

I can't decide whether this is an intentional strawman to misrepresent my argument, or whether you really can't understand exactly what my position is. Unfortunately for you, the latter possibility seems far more likely.

Either way, this whole thing has also been about the idea of the 1 billion+ east asians on the planet collectively having a lower IQ distribution, which your best evidence for is Richard Lynn mentioning several japanese samples with lower distributions.

Again, I am thinking about implication, Off the top of my head, East Asians have historically outnumbered Europeans at least 2 to 1. East Asians have a higher average IQ than Europeans by at least 5 points. Assuming the same SD in IQ variation for both groups, there should be at ~80 times more East Asians with IQs above 160 (again, off the top of my head, so if somebody sees a mistake in my math, feel free to correct me). Yet, in the past 600 years, 92% of all intellectual innovation has appeared in Europe. East Asians are more genetically homgeneous than Europeans, so it seems possible that this may lead to a more homogeneous IQ distribution, although other factors (such as the cultural emphasis on conformity, and historic disparities in nutrition and material living standards) without a doubt play a role in the East Asian under-representation among seminal intellects, which is something I've never denied.

I know this

You obviously didn't know it until I pointed it out, and even now don't fully understand the implications. To re-cap: seemingly small variations in average IQ and SD can make significant, and sometimes very large differences in the frequencies of highly deviant outliers (really, really low and really, really high IQs).

Are you fucking serious? Are you REALLY saying the samples of several hundred to around a thousand are in that study are just as representative as a sample of tens of thousands for a population numbering in the hundreds of thousands or millions?

No, what I am doing is denying your claim that Buj's sample (and just about every other standardization) is unrepresentative. This claim of yours is obviously borne out of an ignorance of rudimentary statistics and the methodology of cognitive psychology. I would suggest that you take an introduction to statistics course at the local community college, if you meet the prerequisites, as I am not in the mood to tutor you on the subject.

Please tell me how using several hundred to a thousand people as samples of countries numbering the millions is "sound".

See above.

No, I really think YOU need to stop and think how idiotic AND nonsensical the argument you're pushing off is. How the living FUCK does a population's genetic diversity translate to a greater variation in IQ?

again, as I pointed out it does not strike me as particularly idiotic to argue by implication that when a population tends towards relative homogeneity in many genetic factors correlated with IQ, as well as socioeconomic factors correlated with IQ (and East Asian populations are, and have historically been, more homogeneous in those cultural and socioeconomic traits), such a population would tend towards relative homogeneity vis-a-vis IQ itself. For instance, most of the studies I've seen show that inbreeding - which, I doubt even you will deny, has the effect of rather radically increasing genetic homogeneity, decreases not only average IQ, but the SD as well. It's hard to dig up anything more than abstracts for these studies on the Internet, but I'll see what I can find and get back to you.

I really love the one for equatorial guinea, where he used a sample of about 40 kids in some European country with known developmental disabilities.

I own a copy of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which a friend is borrowing. I have no doubt that what you're claiming Lynn and Vanhannen to have done is nothing but slander, as it would cross the line from horrendously bad methodology to outright fraud. I will post Lynn's notes on the study he used for Equatorial Guinea's figures when I get the book back.




Suck it.

[Brechun]

It is common knowledge among cognitive and educational psychologists that certain concepts are completely beyond the comprehension of people with limited cognitive abilities, no matter how hard one tries to simpify or compartmentalize these concepts into easily digestible units. For instance, someone with an IQ of 90 will never understand linear algebra. I am beginning to suspect that I am dealing with something similar in your case.

Or, you could very likely just be a huge, elitist asshole. Have I been the one constantly questioning your intelligence? Have I been the one constantly upholding some ridiculous air of intellectual superiority? No, I haven't. That's just you, dick.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are being intentionally obtuse to irritate and troll me, and are not as lamentably dull as your responses to my posts would seem to indicate, but I don't hold out much hope.

And I now no longer give the benefit of a doubt that you don't get aroused at the sound of your own voice.

I will try to explain to you again where the most glaring stupidities lie in your posts, and hope that you will understand and cease making a fool of yourself. If you respond with another trolling post, I will no longer answer your obvious provocations.

That would be just wonderful. I'm sick arguing this trivial bullshit with a pompous ass like you.

Again, let's examine the issue, for the benefit of the gallery.

I made this claim:

The standard deviation of their IQ distribution is considerably lower (12 points for Orientals vs. 15-16 for Europeans). In other words, the Chinese population contains fewer people who fit on either tail of the IQ distribution (geniuses and morons, if you will).

You responded with (emphasis mine):

There's never been any evidence of this. Ever.

I posted evidence to refute your claim:


Evidence (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=658183&postcount=66)

Your evidence was you mentioning Lynn saying there were SOME japanese samples with lower SD's than white samples. THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO LARGE-SCALE POPULATIONS OF EAST ASIANS.

You responded with this glaring bit of backpedaling:

You should have read more carefully yourself before you went off on this huffed-up tangent, though I guess I should have been a bit clearer. I DID say they could vary, but they're almost ALWAYS around 15 points, nearly all the time ranging from as low as 12 to as high as 18

How in god's name was I backpedaling when I already said they could vary?

You made yourself seem especially stupid with this statement:

[T]hey're almost ALWAYS around 15 points, nearly all the time ranging from as low as 12 to as high as 18[..]

This is obviously moot, for several reasons. First, the figures I cited fit well within your 12-18 point range.

Some of them did, some of them didn't. Italians, in your study, had an SD of 34 POINTS! That is VASTLY outside of the 12-18 point range I cite. I also had qualms with it due to their ridiculously small sample sizes.

Second, as I pointed out, my claims concern only the tails of the IQ distribution. Even a very small variation in standard deviations can make a huge difference in the frequency of extremely intelligent and extremely dull individuals - for the purposes of the tails of the IQ distribution, the difference between a standard deviation of 12 and a standard deviation of 18 is nothing short of astronomical.

I know this as well.

If you had known that there were real differences in the standard deviations of the IQ distributions of different populations, when even very small differences radically skew the frequency of highly deviant individuals you would not have raised issue with my claims. Obviously, you only started backpedaling when I cited some research that refuted your claim, your claim being that no such differences exist.

I NEVER FUCKING CLAIMED THIS. Here's what I said:

IQ distributions hover around 15 points in every human population,

Hovering implies full well that they can vary, asshole. All I did was admit that I should have been clear on exactly what that difference was.

However, even when you backpedaled, amending your claim to something along the lines of "sure, there are differences, but they are small. The range is 12 to 18 points. That's like what, only 6 points?" you failed to realize that even a seemingly 'tiny' difference in standard deviation will have large repercussions on the tails, the only part of the IQ distribution that my argument concerned itself with. As I said, as far as the frequency of individuals with extremely high IQs (let's say, 160 points), the difference between a standard deviation of 14 and a standard deviation of 15 is highly significant. The difference between an SD of 12 and an SD of 18 is astronomical. Therefore, your argument is completely specious and irrelevant.

Oh dear god. Here's where my original contention comes from- WN's and racialists frequently claim east asians have a lower IQ distribution. They use this argument to say that it accounts for east asians to be relatively less creative than whites. (which they grossly over-exxagerate) They often act is if this is one of the biggest reasons for the difference, while rarely considering a whole host of other non-genetic factors. You, thankfully, didn't do this. Yet you still upheld this lower SD argument. You wouldn't make much of a point of contention for the many, many centuries of east asian history, with their innumerabe population upheavals and demographic changes and a whole host of other factors affecting them, if you realized IQ variation is simply due to differences in breeding patterns. It's all a matter of the proportions of which segments of a population are breeding more often than others, all trailing down to where IQ variation within a population first begins- inbreeding and outbreeding depression. That's not too hard to understand.

Yet, in face of those many centuries of east asian history again, you pushed off the IQ distribution argument. That gave pretty good indication to you believing it to be some fixed trait, which you honestly do believe. It's not the first time I've seen such an argument advanced.

Really? I can say at least two things about you with complete certainty:

1. You're a shameless liar.

2. You're not bright enough to realize when you've been caught in a lie.

And I can say just one thing with complete certainty for you: you're an immense, self-aggradizing shithead to get this caught up in argument like this.

First of all, I did not make any explanation for differences in IQ variation between different racial groups. I merely pointed out that such differences undoubtedly exist, which you promptly denied, and then posited that, in the case of Orientals, this may be related to lower genetic variation (which is a perfectly sound argument). You, on the other hand, just now pulled this whole "differences in breeding patterns" thing out of your ass, never even bothering to explain, what, precisely, these differences are, nor cite any evidence on their impact upon IQ variation.

See above.

Lower levels of genomic and prototypical variation in a whole array of traits, including virtually all traits correlated with intelligence, would seem to me to imply a somewhat lower level of variation in intelligence itself.

IN YOUR EYES. Show me ANY evidence that something as simplistic as genetic variation would be directly tied to something as extremely complex as intellectual variation. You seem to think they're linked because they're both genetic traits that operate on a level of heterogeneity-homogeneity. That is STUPID.

I fail to see how such an implication is 'idiotic', but you seem to use the term as a catch-all for anything you don't like, disagree with, or don't understand.

I've only used the term "idiotic" a few times in this discussion, prick.

I can't decide whether this is an intentional strawman to misrepresent my argument, or whether you really can't understand exactly what my position is. Unfortunately for you, the latter possibility seems far more likely.

It happens to not be, and now you don't seem to really know what the fuck you're talking about. A population's genetic diversity can ONLY be changed when they recieve a level of new genetic material. Therefore, the lower east asian IQ distribution under your model would only be able to change if they were to breed with another genetically diverse population.

I mean wow, consider you citing the differences in IQ SD between white americans and black americans. By your logic, the black americans should have a VASTLY wider IQ distribution due to africans being the most genetically diverse population in the world, along with nearly all black americans having significant white ancestry.

Again, I am thinking about implication, Off the top of my head, East Asians have historically outnumbered Europeans at least 2 to 1. East Asians have a higher average IQ than Europeans by at least 5 points. Assuming the same SD in IQ variation for both groups, there should be at ~80 times more East Asians with IQs above 160 (again, off the top of my head, so if somebody sees a mistake in my math, feel free to correct me). Yet, in the past 600 years, 92% of all intellectual innovation has appeared in Europe.

Where do you get this figure?

You obviously didn't know it until I pointed it out, and even now don't fully understand the implications. To re-cap: seemingly small variations in average IQ and SD can make significant, and sometimes very large differences in the frequencies of highly deviant outliers (really, really low and really, really high IQs).

Oh wow. You think I had no idea of what differences in IQ SD's meant for the tail-ends until you swooped down and delivered it to me on a silver platter? You are so fucking arrogant. And again, my ONLY contention with your argument was the reason as to WHY their SD's differ. THAT'S ALL. What they mean for the tail-end distributions has NOTHING to do with this.

No, what I am doing is denying your claim that Buj's sample (and just about every other standardization) is unrepresentative.

We're only talking about Buj's sample, which is the only thing you've ever linked to in this entire argument.

This claim of yours is obviously borne out of an ignorance of rudimentary statistics and the methodology of cognitive psychology. I would suggest that you take an introduction to statistics course at the local community college, if you meet the prerequisites, as I am not in the mood to tutor you on the subject.

Ok, I'll take a shot at the gallery now. Petyr is claiming that samples of several hundred to around one thousand are just as representative for populations numbering in the hundreds of thousands or millions as are samples numbering in the tens of thousands or more.

How is this not bullshit? If this was such a simple concept, you'd readily explain in lieu of all the other bullshit you've spewed, instead of telling me to screw off and take a community college course.

again, as I pointed out it does not strike me as particularly idiotic to argue by implication that when a population tends towards relative homogeneity in many genetic factors correlated with IQ, as well as socioeconomic factors correlated with IQ (and East Asian populations are, and have historically been, more homogeneous in those cultural and socioeconomic traits), such a population would tend towards relative homogeneity vis-a-vis IQ itself. For instance, most of the studies I've seen show that inbreeding - which, I doubt even you will deny, has the effect of rather radically increasing genetic homogeneity, decreases not only average IQ, but the SD as well. It's hard to dig up anything more than abstracts for these studies on the Internet, but I'll see what I can find and get back to you.

See above.

I own a copy of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which a friend is borrowing. I have no doubt that what you're claiming Lynn and Vanhannen to have done is nothing but slander, as it would cross the line from horrendously bad methodology to outright fraud. I will post Lynn's notes on the study he used for Equatorial Guinea's figures when I get the book back.

It's not slander. That's because it is just bad methodology and outright fraud. IQ&TWON has been known for ages to be total shit. I know Lynn has published more recent books with better data and setups, but citing that work is just pathetic.

Barring that those kids from equatorial guinea didn't have developmental disabilities, you'd probably still be telling me 48 people is representative of a population of 500,000+ people. Did you read the criticisms on wikipedia?

Suck it.

You too, cunt.

[KerguelenExileDissident]

This map is about what I would expect it to be. Sadly, the diagram of those who reproduce the most are also the ones with less IQ and the ones who are the most intelligent don't produce enough. It is once again obvious due to mans fallible nature he unable to find within all humanity the will properly force changes that might save not only civilization, but all the work and development of generations for thousands of years. But instead of preventing this new dark age, people cater to it. Degenerate liberals continue to live in their lolly little worlds of hedonism while masses and masses of everything from ghetto blacks to white trash to sub-saharan africans to Dravidians in India keep reproducing.

Once world civilization hits a certain point where there are more degenerates than a given civilization has capacity for it will be destroyed by these serfs which in turn destroy themselves leaving the barbarians to pick up the ashes and try again.

We have just got way too many degenerates out there. Everything from music to art is being reduced to extremely primal and primitive level. Decade after decade it is another wave of retardedness and how it is cool to rebel, rebel, rebel and yes REBEL! until there is nothing to rebel against but ashes and ruins.

Eugenics is only viewed as unethical because of it's associations with such figures like Hitler or Tito, which liberals are obsessed with as some kind of metaphysical demon who tortures Jews in a eternal auschwitz oven.

All one needs to do is a simple act of sterilization, such a small thing to give up considering what is at stake - civilization all its wonders.

[Flint Steel]

I've always found it curious that the US has an average IQ as high as 98 given that over a third of the population is of non-European descent. Does the presence of a few million Ashkenazic Jews compensate for 30-odd million negroes and even more meso-Americans?

The average IQ in Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations) is 94. You can add 'Jews are highly intelligent' to the list with 'The nazis gassed six million jews', 'Einstein was the world's greatest mind™' and 'Hitler was the world's most evil man™' and the rest of it.

[Brechun]

The average IQ in Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations) is 94. You can add 'Jews are highly intelligent' to the list with 'The nazis gassed six million jews', 'Einstein was the world's greatest mind™' and 'Hitler was the world's most evil man™' and the rest of it.

On the basis of the fraudulent IQ&TWON, and ignorance of how the high IQ of jews focuses almost exclusively on the Ashkenazi- not the arabs and numerous non-ashkenazi jews that also make up Israel's population, then sure.

It also might not hurt to mention the US's average IQ is estimated to range from 94-98 at present. Not bad for a country that still dominates the world in so many sectors of human accomplishment.

[Opus131]

Or when you send your most expendable to the front to die first, you have a positive eugenic effect when you lose. Most of the smartest people in Germany (as an example) at the time were in one metre thick steel reinforced concrete bunkers that bombs of that time couldn't crack.

Mmmmh, Germany was the center piece of western culture well before the world wars.

[Intellectual]

Jew-Supremacism in the minds of the humble.



the high IQ of jews focuses almost exclusively on the Ashkenazi-



What high IQ would that be you speak of?

Explain then why wikipedia show the largest IQ test samples of Ashkenazi to be only an average median of 105.

Look at the tests on that wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

According to wikipedia listed IQ tests of Ashkenazi, the largest and most statistically accurate tests show an IQ between 103 and 107.


Backman 1972 Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested: 1236. 107.8 verbal IQ

Lynn Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested: probably close to 5000 as it was from school test scores. 103.5 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel

It's so much easier the Jew thinks to say they are of a higher IQ, than to actually prove it.

That places the brightest of the Jews, the Ashkenazi below that of beer drinking and shouting Germans.

[Intellectual]

Why does wiki show Ashkenazi IQ below that of the average German?




Again, let's examine the issue, for the benefit of the gallery.

Suck it.

I'm so like intimidated and stuff.

Is this proof of wikipedia's low IQ for Ashkenazi?

[Schizo]

IQ results depend primarly on health, nutrition and so on. They do not reflect the geneticaly inborn intelligence. Hence it is absolutely normal that the rich countries like Sweden, Japan and Hong Kong will outscore Bulgaria, Ethiopia and Croatia.

How would you explain otherwise that on mathematical olympyads the bulgarian students are always amongst top three...with their low IQ...http://imo.math.ca/results/03/rank.html

[Schizo]

http://imo.math.ca/results/TCBY.html
China, Bulgaria, Russia, Romania, USA all with their "low" IQ excel over IQ top scorers Italy, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong.

How would the retards explain that?

[Macrobius]

How would the retards explain that?

Math olympiad winners would doubtless begin by explaining to you the concept of a long-tailed statistical distribution, and how its large dispersion differs, conceptually, from its mean.

[Brechun]

Jew-Supremacism in the minds of the humble.

Me beliving them to have very high IQ's doesn't make me a supremacist. I would only be one if I believed this trait to be innate.

What high IQ would that be you speak of?

Explain then why wikipedia show the largest IQ test samples of Ashkenazi to be only an average median of 105.

Look at the tests on that wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

Backman 1972 Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested: 1236. 107.8 verbal IQ

Lynn Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested: probably close to 5000 as it was from school test scores. 103.5 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel

So a sample size of several thousand is applicable to their population size of 8-11 million? Hahaha, sure.

It's so much easier the Jew thinks to say they are of a higher IQ, than to actually prove it.

That places the brightest of the Jews, the Ashkenazi below that of beer drinking and shouting Germans.

Gee, so I wonder how these mediocre IQ's you bespeak of lines them up well with their insane levels of achievement in most fields of human endeavor?

Why does wiki show Ashkenazi IQ below that of the average German?

Because you're relying on IQ&TWON.

[Schizo]

Math olympiad winners would doubtless begin by explaining to you the concept of a long-tailed statistical distribution, and how its large dispersion differs, conceptually, from its mean.
Nonsense.
Your "long-tailed statistical distribution, and how its large dispersion differs, conceptually, from its mean" could be easily explained by nutrition, health condition and so on.

And how some students excel at math olympiads depends only on inborn genetic intelligence. Period.

[Macrobius]

Nonsense.
Your "long-tailed statistical distribution, and how its large dispersion differs, conceptually, from its mean" could be easily explained by nutrition, health condition and so on.

And how some students excel at math olympiads depends only on inborn genetic intelligence. Period.

That's how Science works you know. You just keep repeating your claims more vehemently.

[Brechun]

IQ results depend primarly on health, nutrition and so on.

No, it's been frequently shown to be a roughly even mixture, on average, of environmental and genetic factors. The variances in IQ caused by health are transient, and aren't reflective of one's true genotype, as is the same with nutrition. The only permanent effect on IQ that any known nutritional variable has is omega-3 consumption.

Hence it is absolutely normal that the rich countries like Sweden, Japan and Hong Kong will outscore Bulgaria, Ethiopia and Croatia.

Wait, Bulgaria and Croatia suffer from malnutrition and poor health care?

How would you explain otherwise that on mathematical olympyads the bulgarian students are always amongst top three...with their low IQ...http://imo.math.ca/results/03/rank.html

http://imo.math.ca/results/TCBY.html
China, Bulgaria, Russia, Romania, USA all with their "low" IQ excel over IQ top scorers Italy, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong.

How would the retards explain that?

Well, just what are these tests exactly? How g-loaded are they? What were the sample sizes?

[Schizo]

That's how Science works you know. You just keep repeating your claims more vehemently.

Because my claims are valid. The truth.

And yes mathematics is the greatest science. And we excel there.

[Schizo]

Wait, Bulgaria and Croatia suffer from malnutrition and poor health care?

Yes, very poor health care. It's because of communism.

[Schizo]

Well, just what are these tests exactly? How g-loaded are they? What were the sample sizes?
Mathematics. The greatest and most abstract science.

Ever heard about it?

[Brechun]

Mathematics. The greatest and most abstract science.

Ever heard about it?

Ok, so they're mathematics tests. Then how g-loaded are they? How frequently are they given out? How many people take them? How often do they take them?

Looking at those links, it's interesting how low so many developed nations score, and how variable they are even then. I myself am skeptical of ALOT of these international achievement tests. I'd just like to know more about these tests.

[BlackTruth]

IQ test are culturally biased when it comes to Africa


Cole et al (1971) studied a tribe in Africa called the “Kpelle” in which culture was shown to have a rather humorous effect on interpretations of intelligence. In this study adult participants were asked to sort items into categories. However, rather than producing the kind of taxonomic categories (e.g. "fruit" for apple) typically done in the west, the Kpelle participants sorted items into functional groups (e.g. "eat" for apple). After trying and “failing” to teach them to categorize items taxonomically, the Kpelle were asked as a last resort how a “stupid” person would do the task. At that point, according to the researchers, without any hesitation, the Kpelle sorted items into taxonomic categories (Cole et al., 1971)! Demonstrating that not only where these individuals able to do the presented tasks, but in their own culture, what was considered intelligent by western views was thought to be “stupid.”

[Thorvald Eriksson]

IQ test are culturally biased when it comes to Africa

http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/gallery/lip_plates/Surma%20lip%20plate%20bride.JPG%20web.JPG

Oh yes, BT, people that are genetically superior to their biased figures do this to themselves for keep the spiritual evils away. This is the true product of secretly smart people, sure, it's the biased figures that makes them do this...

:negro: :CashMonae:

[BlackTruth]

http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/gallery/lip_plates/Surma%20lip%20plate%20bride.JPG%20web.JPG

Oh yes, BT, people that are genetically superior to their biased figures do this to themselves for keep the spiritual evils away. This is the true product of secretly smart people, sure, it's the biased figures that makes them do this...

:negro: :CashMonae:



http://users.esc.net.au/~mapie/crazy.jpg
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.us/visual-evolution/human-tails/human_tails_09.jpg
http://blozulfog.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/piercings4.jpg
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.us/visual-evolution/human-tails/human_tails_10.jpg

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvfUt5YHINc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvfUt5YHINc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvfUt5YHINc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvfUt5YHINc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qqTDigYgypg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qqTDigYgypg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Brechun]

http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/gallery/lip_plates/Surma%20lip%20plate%20bride.JPG%20web.JPG

Oh yes, BT, people that are genetically superior to their biased figures do this to themselves for keep the spiritual evils away. This is the true product of secretly smart people, sure, it's the biased figures that makes them do this...

:negro: :CashMonae:

Extreme body modification has nothing to do with "intellect". The amount of africans that even engage in such a practice are an extreme minority on the continent- only about 80,000 people make up that group. I bet the amount of whites in the modern west who engage in those practices equals, and possibly exceeds the amount of blacks who do that.

Try a site like BMEzine or BMEzine wiki for horrors that exceed lip expansion like that.

[Vessper]

BlackTruth: Stop spamming everything with those pictures and videos. If you want, make a thread called "Stupid things" in The Lounge and put them all there. Nobody wants to see that.

About IQ on the world, I'm glad Argentina scores that high. I guess that Buenos Aires IQ must be even higher than the rest of Argentina.


I've always found it curious that the US has an average IQ as high as 98 given that over a third of the population is of non-European descent. Does the presence of a few million Ashkenazic Jews compensate for 30-odd million negroes and even more meso-Americans?
So it seems, I doubt that the IQ tests are wrong or something. The test was made 7 years ago anyway, there was less negroes and mestizos in that time.

[Brechun]

BlackTruth: Stop spamming everything with those pictures and videos. If you want, make a thread called "Stupid things" in The Lounge and put them all there. Nobody wants to see that.

About IQ on the world, I'm glad Argentina scores that high. I guess that Buenos Aires IQ must be even higher than the rest of Argentina.



So it seems, I doubt that the IQ tests are wrong or something. The test was made 7 years ago anyway, there was less negroes and mestizos in that time.

The US' IQ is frequently thought to be 94-98.

[Schizo]

http://imo.math.ca/results/TCBY.html
China, Bulgaria, Russia, Romania, USA all with their "low" IQ excel over IQ top scorers Italy, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong.

Hong-Kong citizens are southern chinese. Just a simple link between high achievements in Math Olympiads, low IQ (China) and high average IQ (Hong-Kong - south. chinese). Propose your genetical interpretation! May be has something to do with the history or who knows...

[Schizo]

Hong-Kong citizens are southern chinese. Just a simple link between high achievements in Math Olympiads, low IQ (China) and high average IQ (Hong-Kong - south. chinese). Propose your genetical interpretation! May be has something to do with the history or who knows...
Let the IQ experts explain!

http://imo.math.ca/results/TCBY.html
China, Bulgaria, Russia, Romania, USA all with their "low" IQ excel over IQ top scorers Italy, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong.
Interesting to note the countries of the first group tend to be political superpowers, while the ones in the second economical ones.

BTW have you ever heard about good jewish mathematicians? I haven't :(

[Brechun]

Hong-Kong citizens are southern chinese. Just a simple link between high achievements in Math Olympiads, low IQ (China) and high average IQ (Hong-Kong - south. chinese). Propose your genetical interpretation! May be has something to do with the history or who knows...

You might be interested to know that Lynn & co's IQ data is profoundly contradicted by cranial capacity data: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-head-sizeraceiq-trainwreck/

Brain size is a valid measure of IQ, but in reality, the data indicates these sorts of hierarchies are in reality either very different, smaller, or much more variable than what Lynn and the like push off.

That Beals study has only about 20k skulls, compared to Lynn with over 600k people (albeit a huge number are in first world countries), but it's still something to think about.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- there's simply no universal criteria as to how well measurements of brain size match up with IQ.

[harjit]

Interesting to note the countries of the first group tend to be political superpowers, while the ones in the second economical ones.
Indeed, it's kind of similar to the way East Bloc countries did so well in Olympics during the 70s in spite of their comparative poverty. They want prestige and influence, which is more congruent with political power than free market capitalism.

Unrelated, but this thread is fucking gross. I'd rather not scroll through these pictures a second time, if it can at all be helped.

[Brechun]

Indeed, it's kind of similar to the way East Bloc countries did so well in Olympics during the 70s in spite of their comparative poverty. They want prestige and influence, which is more congruent with political power than free market capitalism.

Unrelated, but this thread is fucking gross. I'd rather not scroll through these pictures a second time, if it can at all be helped.

Why not just adblock?

[Schizo]

Indeed, it's kind of similar to the way East Bloc countries did so well in Olympics during the 70s in spite of their comparative poverty. They want prestige and influence, which is more congruent with political power than free market capitalism.
That has no connection with IQ. Every country wants prestige and needs economical power. From Uganda to S.Korea and Canada.

Unrelated, but this thread is fucking gross. I'd rather not scroll through these pictures a second time, if it can at all be helped.
Why not? Read the Zorn post (and the link (http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-head-sizeraceiq-trainwreck/)). Evidently the link between head size and intelligence (in "IQ" terms) is uncertain.

[Schizo]

Math olympiad winners would doubtless begin by explaining to you the concept of a long-tailed statistical distribution, and how its large dispersion differs, conceptually, from its mean.
Yet, "the concept of a long-tailed statistical distribution, and how its large dispersion differs, conceptually" is a concept.
The genetics and ph.anthropology, are not exact sciences (esp. the second) so the aforementioned approach wouldn't work. How do you know "the beginning" (of explaining) of the MOWs?

[harjit]

Why not? Read the Zorn post (and the link (http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-head-sizeraceiq-trainwreck/)). Evidently the link between head size and intelligence (in "IQ" terms) is uncertain.
Head size and intelligence is fine.

I meant those disgusting earrings fat as tuna-cans, tongues that look like drum skins, tails emerging from ass holes, someone's wang attached to their belly...

[Brechun]

Why not? Read the Zorn post (and the link (http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-head-sizeraceiq-trainwreck/)). Evidently the link between head size and intelligence (in "IQ" terms) is uncertain.

No, it's definitely real. The correlation is something like 0.4. (explains 16% of the variance in IQ.) The problem with it is that there's no universal criteria when it comes to extrapolating this to measurements of brain size on a variety of dimensions. We don't know for sure how one cubic centimeter of cranial capacity makes in terms of IQ. We don't for sure how one gram of brain weight makes in terms of IQ. I could go on.

One thing I can say with alot of certainty is that a brain size of somewhere between 1,300 and 1,400 CC's is equivalent to an IQ of 100, but that's about it.

Old measurements of brain size and IQ (think the 19th century to the mid 20th century) are notoriously incosistent. I've seen measurements of whites go up to the 1,600's, which is larger than cro-magnons and neanderthals. I've seen old measurements of african brain sizes range from 1,250 to 1,450.

Here's one prominent example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248982/

On page 1, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248982/?page=1) we find they used 100 kenyan males of a wide array of age groups, albeit the minimum was 18. (ignoring flucuations in brain weight across the lifespan which, beyond the mid 20's, are unrelated to IQ, or prior to the mid 20's brain size not being fully grown, etc.) This was done in the 1930's, so these things might not have been known as much.

But then again, measuring the brains of 100 people is about the same as getting an IQ measurement of 100 people, and using this to represent the average of all blacks in kenya back then. That's pretty spurious.

On page 2, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248982/?page=2) we see something interesting- the weight brain weight of whites from an ancient meta-analysis is listed as 1,428 grams. It lists the kenyan brain weight as being 1,276 grams. Yet in the kenyan sample, it lists the smallest and largest as being 1,006 grams and 1,644 grams respectively. In other words, the smallest kenyan brain is about 200 grams smaller than the average in this tiny sample, and the largest is 200 grams larger than the european average, and a staggering 400 grams larger than the kenyan average.

With these kinds of variations in such a small sample, I can't help but take qualms with the reliability of these sorts of measurements, particularly old ones like this, and how the vast majority of these measurements have been working without virtually any proper criteria for IQ and measurements of brain size. They're basically working in darkness. There's certainly correlations and hierarchies, but they're incredibly vague. The huge brain size measurements for whites probably came disproportionately from very elite samples. Then they compare these to a bunch of random african tribesmen.

It also lists how the brains in keyans considerably decline after age 16. While speed and rates of brain growth can vary both within and between races for genetic and environmental factors (obviously), when you've got something like brain size declining so early, I can't help but also wonder about about the validity of their measurements here when it's going contrary to something that's intrinsic to the normal brain development of humans worldwide and throughout time.

[Impérialiste]

No, it's definitely real. The correlation is something like 0.4. (explains 16% of the variance in IQ.) The problem with it is that there's no universal criteria when it comes to extrapolating this to measurements of brain size on a variety of dimensions. We don't know for sure how one cubic centimeter of cranial capacity makes in terms of IQ. We don't for sure how one gram of brain weight makes in terms of IQ. I could go on.

One thing I can say with alot of certainty is that a brain size of somewhere between 1,300 and 1,400 CC's is equivalent to an IQ of 100, but that's about it.

Old measurements of brain size and IQ (think the 19th century to the mid 20th century) are notoriously incosistent. I've seen measurements of whites go up to the 1,600's, which is larger than cro-magnons and neanderthals. I've seen old measurements of african brain sizes range from 1,250 to 1,450.

Here's one prominent example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248982/

On page 1, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248982/?page=1) we find they used 100 kenyan males of a wide array of age groups, albeit the minimum was 18. (ignoring flucuations in brain weight across the lifespan which, beyond the mid 20's, are unrelated to IQ, or prior to the mid 20's brain size not being fully grown, etc.) This was done in the 1930's, so these things might not have been known as much.

But then again, measuring the brains of 100 people is about the same as getting an IQ measurement of 100 people, and using this to represent the average of all blacks in kenya back then. That's pretty spurious.

On page 2, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248982/?page=2) we see something interesting- the weight brain weight of whites from an ancient meta-analysis is listed as 1,428 grams. It lists the kenyan brain weight as being 1,276 grams. Yet in the kenyan sample, it lists the smallest and largest as being 1,006 grams and 1,644 grams respectively. In other words, the smallest kenyan brain is about 200 grams smaller than the average in this tiny sample, and the largest is 200 grams larger than the european average, and a staggering 400 grams larger than the kenyan average.

With these kinds of variations in such a small sample, I can't help but take qualms with the reliability of these sorts of measurements, particularly old ones like this, and how the vast majority of these measurements have been working without virtually any proper criteria for IQ and measurements of brain size. They're basically working in darkness. There's certainly correlations and hierarchies, but they're incredibly vague. The huge brain size measurements for whites probably came disproportionately from very elite samples. Then they compare these to a bunch of random african tribesmen.

It also lists how the brains in keyans considerably decline after age 16. While speed and rates of brain growth can vary both within and between races for genetic and environmental factors (obviously), when you've got something like brain size declining so early, I can't help but also wonder about about the validity of their measurements here when it's going contrary to something that's intrinsic to the normal brain development of humans worldwide and throughout time.

J. P. Rushton used an MRI to get accurate brain sizes and argues the correlation between brain size and IQ is about 0.2.

[Brechun]

J. P. Rushton used an MRI to get accurate brain sizes and argues the correlation between brain size and IQ is about 0.2.

I believe that's mainly reffering to brain size itself and not skull size.

As I said, I don't deny correlations between either of those and IQ. It's just that exact criterias are virtually non-existant and are poorly applied to racial comparisons.