"Average IQ is lower in poorer countries. Why?" - The Duh Factor

Atomic Fireball

Well-Known Member
Donator
Jul 26, 2005
6,254
4,197
613
#1
Not Smart Enough to Be Rich?

Average IQ is lower in poorer countries. Why?

Published on August 8, 2013 by Louis Putterman, Ph.D



Just in case you haven’t heard this before, I’ve got some information for you that you might find a bit troubling. In their 2006 book titled IQ and Global Inequality, intelligence experts Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen report that setting the average measured IQ in the U.K. at 100, people in the U.S. had average IQs of 100 and 98, respectively. (sic) People in the Central African Republic, Mali and Kenya had average IQs of 64, 69 and 72. People in India, Indonesians, and Iraq scored somewhat higher than those in the poorer countries but lower than those in the richer countries: their average IQs were 82, 87, and 87 respectively.

Are country incomes and IQs correlated? A recent study using a sample of 157 countries finds a high and statistically significant correlation between the two. One might conclude, then, that it is the lower IQs of their people that explains the lower average incomes of people in the world’s poorer countries. Lynn and Vanhanen evidently think so.

Could this really be true?

Were this the nineteenth century, during which the sun never set on European empires, a cross regional study with findings like this might have been treated as self-evident in the U.K. or U.S. It would have seemed to provide a moral justification for colonizing powers to maintain their rule over their inferior charges, helping them to advance themselves to the extent possible given their “more meager innate endowments.”
But it’s the twenty-first century, and IQ tests are a modern scientific tool. Racism has been roundly debunked. So what gives?

(Lame explanation that lack of Smartphones makes third-worlders dumber deleted)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-the-bad-the-economy/201308/not-smart-enough-be-rich

I for one am shocked.
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,741
3,826
328
#3
IQ is for fags.
 
May 30, 2013
46,132
41,882
293
#4
So, countries that have split the atom and sent men into space have higher IQs than countries that still burn people for being witches. I didn't see that coming.

NSFL video of actual witch burnings-

 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,896
15,270
303
#5
For starters, I take issue with the notion that "racism has been roundly debunked." Since when?
Is this person implying that there is no genetic basis for intelligence or that "races don't exist?"
Laughably false.

For instance, race IQ differences have been definitely proven again and again and again through thousands of studies
concerning millions of subjects for more than 100 years. We know even now the genetic basis for general intelligence right down to the very genes responsible for it.

The article's claim that...
"Supposing that each new cohort that is born has greater intellectual potential than the one before it could hardly make sense, if that potential is determined genetically" is a gross misunderstanding of selective evolution. Doesn't this person understand the evolutionary heritability of desired traits that increase survival potential? Imagine the phrase "Supposing that each new fish cohort that is born has greater swimming potential than the one before it could hardly make sense if that potential is determined genetically." This is immediately understood as false for fish athleticism and yet IQ is the one part where it doesn't "make sense."

Ah, to be politically correct I suppose we just have to throw out tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution on humanity in environments as different as East Asia, Scandinavia and sub-Saharan Africa. Evolution is easily understood by the willfully blind for everything else except the evolutionary and genetic basis of human intelligence.

The last, weak argument against this is to find a socially unacceptable person who proposed this easily understandable, cogent and comprehensive explanation for intelligence differences by race, such as a David Duke,
and discredit it with guilt by association. However, this means we must ignore brilliant scientists like Rushton and Watson who have conclusively proven the genetic heritability of intelligence and race differences in it.

This argument elevates a Flynn Effect, that is increased IQ from additional stimuli such as radio, television and computers, to a definitively proven thing that explains everything without racial component with intelligence, which is enormously wrong. The Flynn Effect is largely over and overall global IQ is in decline.
 

Jacuzzi Billy

Watching PTI
Donator
Mar 22, 2006
42,088
21,761
628
Red Jacuzzi
#6
For starters, I take issue with the notion that "racism has been roundly debunked." Since when?
Is this person implying that there is no genetic basis for intelligence or that "races don't exist?"
Laughably false.

For instance, race IQ differences have been definitely proven again and again and again through thousands of studies
concerning millions of subjects for more than 100 years. We know even now the genetic basis for general intelligence right down to the very genes responsible for it.

The article's claim that...
"Supposing that each new cohort that is born has greater intellectual potential than the one before it could hardly make sense, if that potential is determined genetically" is a gross misunderstanding of selective evolution. Doesn't this person understand the evolutionary heritability of desired traits that increase survival potential? Imagine the phrase "Supposing that each new fish cohort that is born has greater swimming potential than the one before it could hardly make sense if that potential is determined genetically." This is immediately understood as false for fish athleticism and yet IQ is the one part where it doesn't "make sense."

Ah, to be politically correct I suppose we just have to throw out tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution on humanity in environments as different as East Asia, Scandinavia and sub-Saharan Africa. Evolution is easily understood by the willfully blind for everything else except the evolutionary and genetic basis of human intelligence.

The last, weak argument against this is to find a socially unacceptable person who proposed this easily understandable, cogent and comprehensive explanation for intelligence differences by race, such as a David Duke,
and discredit it with guilt by association. However, this means we must ignore brilliant scientists like Rushton and Watson who have conclusively proven the genetic heritability of intelligence and race differences in it.

This argument elevates a Flynn Effect, that is increased IQ from additional stimuli such as radio, television and computers, to a definitively proven thing that explains everything without racial component with intelligence, which is enormously wrong. The Flynn Effect is largely over and overall global IQ is in decline.
The Like Train showing off his science skills. Carmen approves...

 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,670
6,859
693
F.U.B.A.R
#7
Going Tribal shows life for those on the lower end of the scale. A great way to take a peek without having to commit yourself to living hell.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#8
Not only did you delete the "lame explanations" but your fucking link is also broken.

What both sides (the "income therefor IQ" and "race therefor IQ" sides) in this debate are ignoring are all the other possible factors, besides race and income, such as language, writing system, philosophical, literary, scientific, child rearing traditions. In other words, all the broad factors, except for average wealth/family, that influence what kind an adult children tend to turn into in a culture, are ignored. All these other factors can be summed up with one word: culture.

Here's a map of estimated IQ/country (the darkest blue of Korea, China and Japan is the highest- over 105, then as the colors turn lighter blue, it goes down; US and Western Europe is 95-100; yellow is around 80, red under 70)


First off, please note that with most of the countries, there is no data related to IQ, so the authors of the map just took the average IQ of neighboring countries and arbitrarily assigned them to the country. That's retarded. So we can safely ignore Mongolia's score of 100 (Mongolia is the one between China and Russia).

Clearly, the things uniting Korea, Japan and China most are race and cultural factors. Not income, not even short term politics. Race can be dismissed as the main factor, because a. it's retarded, we know too much about the biology of the brain, and about genetics and evolution to realize that the factors that lead to the formation of groups of humans with significant outwardly differences DID NOT have an effect on brain size and function; the brain takes millions of years of evolution to change significantly, while pigments in skin and facial structure takes more like tens of thousands b. there are other countries of the same race, but with significantly lower IQs.

Based on that, a better starting point for a hypothesis on the cause of high IQ is culture. (note how North America, Australia, and Western and Eastern Europe - Russia should be counted as Eastern Europe, because that's where most of the population lives, and that's where Russia was for most of its history - the culturally related areas known as "Western culture", also have the same score, despite wildly different economic conditions)

The authors of the study this map came from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations) did one thing right though: being optimistic about China's long term development into an economic superpower.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,896
15,270
303
#9
Higher IQs produce cultures that value it more. Cultures are a race construct, races are not a culture construct. "Culture" doesn't get the job done for explaining 100 year's worth of IQ testing.
I never included a link in my first post, by the way.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#10
Average IQ is lower in poorer countries. Why?
Less intellectual stimulation (read: no intellectual stimulation) during childhood leads to mentally underdeveloped adults that think that albino body parts are magical.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#11
So, countries that have split the atom and sent men into space have higher IQs than countries that still burn people for being witches. I didn't see that coming.

NSFL video of actual witch burnings-

The one sitting down was a slow roaster. Damn, did it take that dude a while to die. Maybe he really was a witch.
 
May 30, 2013
46,132
41,882
293
#12
Less intellectual stimulation (read: no intellectual stimulation) during childhood leads to mentally underdeveloped adults that think that albino body parts are magical.
Have you not seen "Powder?"
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#15
Ugh, don't remind me.
I fucked that post up (I thought you were responding to my second post because I didn't bother to read the quote) and ended up wasting my Anakin Skywalker burning joke. Goddammit.
 
May 30, 2013
46,132
41,882
293
#16
I fucked that post up (I thought you were responding to my second post because I didn't bother to read the quote) and ended up wasting my Anakin Skywalker burning joke. Goddammit.
Well, let's be honest, it was a waste even though you told it. :action-sm
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,896
15,270
303
#17
If culture, poverty and a lack of stimulation and intact families impacts IQ so adversely, why is it that White students who take the SAT but come from single mother households,
whose mothers did not graduate high school nor earn a GED, and make less than 20,000 per year outscore black students from 2 parent households with both of the parents having at
least Bachelor's degrees and making more than 80,000 per year? SAT score exact parity is reached when Whites from families making $20,000 go against Blacks with families making
more than $100,000. It has to be more than environment or wealth or a "culture of poverty."

 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#18
If culture, poverty and a lack of stimulation and intact families impacts IQ so adversely, why is it that White students who take the SAT but come from single mother households,
whose mothers did not graduate high school nor earn a GED, and make less than 20,000 per year outscore black students from 2 parent households with both of the parents having at
least Bachelor's degrees and making more than 80,000 per year? SAT score exact parity is reached when Whites from families making $20,000 go against Blacks with families making
more than $100,000. It has to be more than environment or wealth or a "culture of poverty."

You forgot about the culture of ignorance, the culture of laziness, the culture of entitlement, and the culture of anti-intellectualism.

By the way, where did that chart come from, you lazy, no-link-posting asshole? :action-sm