PDA

View Full Version : Average IQ of nations



LeBrok
21-11-09, 09:59
I was taught by my teachers in 70s and 80s that we are all born equal like a clean slate, and only the nurture mattered in creating character and intellect. A very romantic view of human kind I must say. Doing my research into this subject I came upon a very interesting article in Wikipedia.


Significant correlations with higher national IQ were found for a number of factors: higher GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP)/capita, higher adult literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy) rate, higher gross tertiary education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education) enrollment ratio, higher life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy) at birth, higher level of democratization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization) 2002 (Tatu Vanhanen'sIndex of Democratization (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Index_of_Democratization&action=edit&redlink=1)), higher Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index), higher Gender-related Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-related_Development_Index), higher economic growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth) rate, lower Gini index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index) of inequality in income or consumption, lower population below the $2 a day international poverty line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line), lower measures of undernourishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undernourishment), lower maternal mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality) ratio, lower infant mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality) rate, higher Corruption Perceptions Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index), higher Economic Freedom of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World) ratings, higher Index of Economic Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom) ratings, and more narrow population pyramid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid) (MU Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MU_Index&action=edit&redlink=1)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

Does this mean that average IQ of the nation should be over 90 to have well run, developed country?
Are developed countries successful because of high average IQ, or IQ is high because countries have money for good education?

Maciamo
21-11-09, 11:48
We are obviously not born equal genetically, and genes do have a big influence on intelligence. Nutrition , education and personal experience make up for the rest.

Delusional Christians (I know, it's a pleonasm) would like to believe in a utopic world where all people are born equal with equal opportunities. But that is impossible, even for siblings.

Just nutrition and education (be it the parents' own knowledge passed on to their kids, or the compulsory state education) can explain why underdeveloped countries, like most of Africa, have lower IQ than, say Europeans. But genes play a role too.

Ethnicity is a poor measure of IQ because genes for IQ can differ even among siblings, due to the genetic lottery. But some alleles are more frequent in some ethnic groups than in others, raising the average IQ. Natural selection has been an important factor in increasing or decreasing the frequency of such alleles. That's why Jewish people, who have had to try harder to survive, usually doing more intellectual work, now have a higher average IQ than any other ethnic group (this is explained in details in the 10,000 year explosion (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0465002218?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&link_code=as3&camp=2506&creative=9298&creativeASIN=0465002218)).

Tomenable
25-03-15, 01:50
I've found such a lecture:

Dr. Phil. Helmuth Nyborg - IQ, immigration and Europe's future (part 1-4):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO04pmW2Njk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO04pmW2Njk

Tomenable
25-03-15, 01:51
Dr. Phil. Helmuth Nyborg - IQ, immigration and Europe's future (part 2-4):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmWIOByI3FU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmWIOByI3FU

Tomenable
25-03-15, 01:51
Dr. Phil. Helmuth Nyborg - IQ, immigration and Europe's future (part 3-4):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovUZuOw57Js


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovUZuOw57Js

Tomenable
25-03-15, 01:52
Dr. Phil. Helmuth Nyborg - IQ, immigration and Europe's future (part 4-4):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKPdFmujaF4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKPdFmujaF4

Maleth
25-03-15, 03:11
Wow its all about the sperm. All these horny guys will be destroying civilization. Not easy to understand Mother Nature. :confused2: by the way Reaseach says that 85% of financial success is more related to EI (emotional intellegence) and only 15 % due to IQ


http://www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2012/04/12/intelligence-is-overrated-what-you-really-need-to-succeed/

LeBrok
25-03-15, 08:23
I've found such a lecture:

Dr. Phil. Helmuth Nyborg - IQ, immigration and Europe's future (part 1-4):


Interesting statistics, though I'm not in agreement with some conclusions.

Lynn's hypothesis about Northerners being smart thanks to cold weather doesn't hold much water, especially in light of recent advances in demographic genetics. We know that civilization came with farming from Near East, and not from Scandinavia or Siberia. The rise of Europe happened only when all it's population had at least 40% of farmer's genes. First European civilizations started in South Europe, not in the North.
Also first East Asia civilization happened in South China, not in Kamchatka, likewise American one happened in Sub Tropical region where Maze was domesticated first.
According to me, the heightened IQ level came from farmers.

He didn't explained why there was no Democracy in Europe for most of the history, although Europeans should have been smart, with high IQ, from way back. Otherwise, we would need explanation why Europe IQ rose dramatically in 20th century leading to many democratic countries.

Other thing he omitted, is to take under consideration fact that undeveloped world IQ is lower mostly due to lack of education, brain stimulation, lack of good nutrients, etc. I'm sure there are discrepancy between races, but not to the current level when compared developed country to the third world one. I think, economic development, education, nutrients might represent additional 20 IQ points.

Another issue is his dislike of emigrants. He spends most of the time one them, although according to his calculations, 3/4 of lowering IQ in Denmark will be done by fertile lower class of Danes themselves.
It could be interesting to study Danish emigration policy. Who was proffered? The poorest of the world, or whole spectrum of refuges, or mostly physical labour refuges, lack of educated and investment class of emigrants? He says that emigrant kids scored lower than general population, but perhaps the problem comes from danish emigration policy proffering less smart physical type labourers? Perhaps, this can be amended by expending the profile of emigrants?

I don't think things are as pessimistic as he paints it to be. I can see some "preserve my specie, save my tribe" attitude. Similar to Kardu's point of view. "I'm for freedom of choosing spouses, but only if they are of my race".

mihaitzateo
25-03-15, 13:28
Well North Koreans have between highest IQ in the world,on par with their South Koreans brothers.
However,North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world,while South Korea,between most rich countries in the world.
So is not only about people intelligence but also about other things.
People will say that North Korea have a totalitarian bolshevik regime - well Saudi Arabia do not have too much democracy either,but they are a very rich country,China have a kind of bolshevism,with state controlling some business , and they are between richest countries also...

Angela
25-03-15, 14:13
Interesting statistics, though I'm not in agreement with some conclusions. Lynn's hypothesis about Northerners being smart thanks to cold weather doesn't hold much water, especially in light of recent advances in demographic genetics. We know that civilization came with farming from Near East, and not from Scandinavia or Siberia. The rise of Europe happened only when all it's population had at least 40% of farmer's genes. First European civilizations started in South Europe, not in the North. Also first East Asia civilization happened in South China, not in Kamchatka, likewise American one happened in Sub Tropical region where Maze was domesticated first. According to me, the heightened IQ level came from farmers. He didn't explained why there was no Democracy in Europe for most of the history, although Europeans should have been smart, with high IQ, from way back. Otherwise, we would need explanation why Europe IQ rose dramatically in 20th century leading to many democratic countries. Other thing he omitted, is to take under consideration fact that undeveloped world IQ is lower mostly due to lack of education, brain stimulation, lack of good nutrients, etc. I'm sure there are discrepancy between races, but not to the current level when compared developed country to the third world one. I think, economic development, education, nutrients might represent additional 20 IQ points. Another issue is his dislike of emigrants. He spends most of the time one them, although according to his calculations, 3/4 of lowering IQ in Denmark will be done by fertile lower class of Danes themselves. It could be interesting to study Danish emigration policy. Who was proffered? The poorest of the world, or whole spectrum of refuges, or mostly physical labour refuges, lack of educated and investment class of emigrants? He says that emigrant kids scored lower than general population, but perhaps the problem comes from danish emigration policy proffering less smart physical type labourers? Perhaps, this can be amended by expending the profile of emigrants? I don't think things are as pessimistic as he paints it to be. I can see some "preserve my specie, save my tribe" attitude. Similar to Kardu's point of view. "I'm for freedom of choosing spouses, but only if they are of my race".

I do think there is a genetic basis to IQ differences, as can be seen from all the twin studies and/or adoption studies. There may even be differences by "population groups". However, the only way to actually measure something approaching "intellectual potential" is to give students hours long tests like the Stanford-Binet which involve pattern recognition, speed of processing, digit recall etc. Even in those tests there are sections devoted to "general Knowledge", analogies etc. So, lack of access to quality education still isn't totally factored out (you can't figure out an analogy if you don't know the vocabulary), and, of course, there's no way to factor out the effect of poor nutrition or the effect that having a crack addicted mother would have on neo-natal development, for instance.

So, while there may be differences individually or by group, I don't think we know the extent of them because of all the variables and because of the kind of testing that is done. Using an academic test like PISA, for example, is going to heavily reflect the quality of the education system. Just as one example, I've seen studies which used PISA where Finns scored very high, but that may in some part reflect the excellence of their educational system because on strictly IQ tests the results were different.

Then there's the fact that Professor Lynn is a dishonest researcher. Whatever test you're going to use, each group should be measured using the same test given the same year under the same circumstances. Instead, in his book "The Wealth of Nations", he used results from different tests from very different time periods, some from periods when education wasn't even mandatory beyond a certain level. For areas where there was no data, he "estimated" it based on development. The good professor has obviously never encountered the phrase "circular reasoning".

He also comes to conclusions based on either a total lack of knowledge about the background of the testees, or he deliberately ignores the confounding factors in order to support his agenda. Just as an example, he published some work purportedly showing IQ differences in Italy from north to south. His conclusions were in part based on the results of PISA tests given in Milan versus some city in the south, I forget which one. The Milan results were slightly over 100 and the southern ones slightly over 90. There's only one problem...half the students in the schools in Milan are of southern ancestry. The math doesn't work unless native northern Italian children actually have an IQ over 110. He either didn't know this or chose not to mention this...It also didn't seem to occur to him that when you are giving what is in effect an achievement test, the quality of the education matters, as does nutrition, family support etc. I also think that in some areas you might be seeing what amounts to a sort of "brain drain". Intelligent, motivated people who have no "connections" in their home region will emigrate to more developed areas. I think that goes some way toward explaining things like the below 90 rate for the Irish in his compilation in comparison to the results for the English.

As to this Danish professor, I haven't examined his work in detail, but the fact that he was dismissed for shoddy, dishonest research should put his findings in some doubt. There are indeed some academics who have agendas (both on the "left" and the "right" to use those terms) and it's important to look at the work objectively to see if the results have been biased in some way. Any research in this field has to be submitted to rigorous analysis to see if there are errors or biases in the methodology.

Angela
25-03-15, 14:35
Dr. Phil. Helmuth Nyborg - IQ, immigration and Europe's future (part 4-4):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKPdFmujaF4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKPdFmujaF4

Well, for Europeans who really believe IQ is all genetically determined, and who are concerned with raising local IQ levels, it might not have been a good idea for Europe to try to exterminate its Ashkenazi Jews, and maybe the harassment of the few brave souls who are left should cease.

Ed. for grammar.

LeBrok
25-03-15, 17:24
Well North Koreans have between highest IQ in the world,on par with their South Koreans brothers. North Korean runs the tests, and they lie like with everything else. How could they show that North Korean score is lower than capitalist South?


However,North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world,while South Korea,between most rich countries in the world. For that reason malnutritioned North Korean have lower score. How much lower, we don't know. It is the totalitarian country where everything is controlled, IQ test scores too.


So is not only about people intelligence but also about other things.
People will say that North Korea have a totalitarian bolshevik regime - well Saudi Arabia do not have too much democracy either,but they are a very rich country Saudi Arabia is newly riched country. It didn't have time to turn into democracy. Remember how long it took Europeans to get there.



China have a kind of bolshevism,with state controlling some business , and they are between richest countries also...
Poverty almost always equal totalitarian regime. When people are poor, they are unhappy and rebellious. Only totalitarian system can keep them in check. When country get richer, people are more content with their lives, they concentrate mostly on working, family and their happy lives. At this point totalitarian regime is not needed anymore. Rules are relaxed, people become more free, and all system drifts into Democracy. China is currently in the middle of this process. Give them another 20 years and they should become fully Democratic.
Russia was almost their, but then Putin happened, and turned Democratic tides back, though only temporarily.

LeBrok
25-03-15, 17:49
He also comes to conclusions based on either a total lack of knowledge about the background of the testees, or he deliberately ignores the confounding factors in order to support his agenda. Just as an example, he published some work purportedly showing IQ differences in Italy from north to south. His conclusions were in part based on the results of PISA tests given in Milan versus some city in the south, I forget which one. The Milan results were slightly over 100 and the southern ones slightly over 90. There's only one problem...half the students in the schools in Milan are of southern ancestry. The math doesn't work unless native northern Italian children actually have an IQ over 110. He either didn't know this or chose not to mention this...It also didn't seem to occur to him that when you are giving what is in effect an achievement test, the quality of the education matters, as does nutrition, family support etc. I also think that in some areas you might be seeing what amounts to a sort of "brain drain". Intelligent, motivated people who have no "connections" in their home region will emigrate to more developed areas. I think that goes some way toward explaining things like the below 90 rate for the Irish in his compilation in comparison to the results for the English.

As to this Danish professor, I haven't examined his work in detail, but the fact that he was dismissed for shoddy, dishonest research should put his findings in some doubt. There are indeed some academics who have agendas (both on the "left" and the "right" to use those terms) and it's important to look at the work objectively to see if the results have been biased in some way. Any research in this field has to be submitted to rigorous analysis to see if there are errors or biases in the methodology.

Perhaps many good researchers are shying away from IQ projects, not to be labeled racist. I'm sure it must be difficult to get government founds for such research.
Policy makers might be scared of the truth pocking it's ugly head from scientific papers. What if science definitely finds out that there are dramatic differences between races? What if American Natives turned to be at 85 IQ score? What does that mean for self governance, educational programs, jobs, stigma, self worth, addictions, fight with corruption? Will they become truly distinct with special programs and overseeing, and always on government handouts?

Aberdeen
25-03-15, 18:57
Well, for Europeans who really believe IQ is all genetically determined, and who are concerned with raising local IQ levels, it might not have been a good idea for Europe to try to exterminate its Ashkenazi Jews, and maybe the harassment of the few brave souls who are left should cease.

Ed. for grammar.

I suspect that many of the people who are really interested in the subject of race and IQ and who claim that genetics is the only thing that matters don't want to talk about Jewish IQs. They'd rather talk about the apparently high IQ averages of Nordic/Germanic types as compared to Sub-Saharan Africans. Of course, I've met people at the other end of the spectrum who insist that to even consider genetics as part of the equation is horribly wrong. Neither extreme seems to me to be very fact friendly.

Maleth
25-03-15, 19:53
Perhaps many good researchers are shying away from IQ projects, not to be labeled racist. I'm sure it must be difficult to get government founds for such research.
Policy makers might be scared of the truth pocking it's ugly head from scientific papers. What if science definitely finds out that there are dramatic differences between races? What if American Natives turned to be at 85 IQ score? What does that mean for self governance, educational programs, jobs, stigma, self worth, addictions, fight with corruption? Will they become truly distinct with special programs and overseeing, and always on government handouts?

If one watches the whole lecture its not too difficult with how the words are put and general body language to realize that the whole thing is a far cry from anything serious, respectable or even factual. Besides that the arguments being brought up are very contradictory (I sincerely would not like to give a list of how contradictory through history and also current situations of the whole subject is to past and current events visa vi IQ to all the situations mentioned) and in all honesty no huge funding is needed to create some slides with tons of wordings then reading them out (passe kind of presentations) as part of a power point presentation. The so called 'study' creates lots of undertones that do not merit any ground breaking theories and the low testerone vs 'gentle men' and high testerone vs people that bang heads is not something that would garnish my respect to a medium who is passing information to an audience...........

bicicleur
25-03-15, 19:55
Well, for Europeans who really believe IQ is all genetically determined, and who are concerned with raising local IQ levels, it might not have been a good idea for Europe to try to exterminate its Ashkenazi Jews, and maybe the harassment of the few brave souls who are left should cease.

Ed. for grammar.

well one theory tells that the presumed higher intelligence is caused by the fact that Europeans killed all the stupid Ashkenazis while the smart Ashkenazis were smart enough to escape homicide
i think discussion can go on for ever with this kind of arguments

LeBrok
25-03-15, 20:10
well one theory tells that the presumed higher intelligence is caused by the fact that Europeans killed all the stupid Ashkenazis while the smart Ashkenazis were smart enough to escape homicide
i think discussion can go on for ever with this kind of arguments

Few extra points for sure, however looking at the history they were always on top of the ladder, whenever they showed up and in whatever country. This denotes rather high, above average intelligence, from antiquity.
This is my prime example, from another thread, that in the past their could have been few extra smart societies together with Phoenicians, Greeks, Babylonians and Romans.
Are there IQ statistics of other Jewish groups?

Angela
25-03-15, 20:28
I suspect that many of the people who are really interested in the subject of race and IQ and who claim that genetics is the only thing that matters don't want to talk about Jewish IQs. They'd rather talk about the apparently high IQ averages of Nordic/Germanic types as compared to Sub-Saharan Africans. Of course, I've met people at the other end of the spectrum who insist that to even consider genetics as part of the equation is horribly wrong. Neither extreme seems to me to be very fact friendly.

Indeed...I get that feeling myself.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif It's one of those inconvenient truths. Also, if the concern was really that they want only well-educated (and thus presumably intelligent) immigrants, then why not have immigration policies that specifically welcome South Asian or Middle Eastern or East Asian engineers and people with advanced degrees in computer science or mathematics? Don't all post industrialized countries need more of those kinds of people? The reality is that for people like this it wouldn't matter how intelligent or law abiding or willing to assimilate such people were, they still wouldn't be welcome. Another inconvenient truth is that all of these uneducated, poverty stricken people were allowed to enter Europe when they were needed for factory jobs and to do work natives no longer wanted to do...now that the economy has changed, they want them out. You are sometimes stuck with the consequences of your decisions.

@Aberdeen and LeBrok,

As I stated above, there might well be some differences by "population group". Specifically to your question Le Brok, respected researchers might indeed shy away from doing the research for fear of being labeled racist, leaving it to the bigoted charlatans receiving covert funding from white supremacist groups. Whenever you have these kinds of issues, reason is often not applied.

To talk about the fact that there might actually be a disparity would be political suicide here, I can tell you. It can be controversial even to state that many of the problems in the African American communities stem from the total collapse of the family structure, although it's really something that can't be denied.

I don't think this is an issue solely of possible "racial" differences, however, and I emphasize possible, because we really don't know. Anyone who thinks that there aren't whole pockets of America populated by "pure" White Anglo Saxon Americans, as they used to be called, who don't have the intellectual capacity to function within a modern post industrial society hasn't been paying attention or hasn't traveled here very much.

In America today, to get a job providing a "middle class" living, you basically need to have some college education. All those factory jobs are long gone and I don't think they're going to return any time soon, and "service" jobs don't pay very much. Even non-factory "blue collar" jobs don't pay that well. To go to college you would need, what, an IQ of at least 105? (The one thing that these tests are indisputably good for is for predicting achievement on a college level. The SATs are even better. ) At least half of the "white" population is below that, here and in Europe. How many white Brits are "on the dole"? It's the same everywhere. It's also true, as our posters have pointed out, that college educated women (or couples) are having fewer children than the poor. (Except in Italy, perhaps, where no one is having children!) Here, I do have to mention that if men chose wives with just a little consideration for IQ instead of other measures they might have children who have fewer difficulties at school. (I just had to get that in there.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/grin.png)

So, what's the solution? Is the more genetically intelligent (if we assume it's all genetic and intellectual functioning can't be raised very much) half of the population supposed to support the less intelligent half forever?

Aberdeen
25-03-15, 21:12
I do think it's very difficult to separate nature from nurture. A friend of mine thinks the reason Chinese people seem to have a special affinity for math is because they've spent centuries reading a pictographic language, which helped develop their abilities for grasping symbolic language. I'm dubious about that theory simply because of the small percentage of literate people in any country, including China, until recently. I think the value a particular culture places on certain things does affect the skill sets of individuals in that culture. But I don't really know how one would test such ideas with any certainty.

The issue of the lower IQ part of various populations no longer being needed but breeding more than high IQ people is certainly something that various people, including a few science fiction writers, have talked about. But if a country was really concerned about that issue, there are some obvious things that could be done to address the issue. For example, I was reading something the other day about how developed countries with good daycare systems see a higher birth rate among women who are university graduates.

LeBrok
25-03-15, 23:04
Should we hope for designer babies with high IQ to save our Civilization?

Expredel
25-03-15, 23:22
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Brain_Size_Map.png

Cranial capacity based on 20000 skulls measured in a 1984 study. The results for Egypt might be a clue regarding the origin of Jewish intelligence.

Under no circumstance should this map be taken serious, we don't know the gender distribution of the skulls, malnutrition, sample size for each region, how old the skulls were, how old the persons were when they died, etc.

Also highly unethical research which probably should be outlawed in the future.

LeBrok
26-03-15, 00:06
Cranial capacity based on 20000 skulls measured in a 1984 study. The results for Egypt might be a clue regarding the origin of Jewish intelligence.

Under no circumstance should this map be taken serious, we don't know the gender distribution of the skulls, malnutrition, sample size for each region, how old the skulls were, how old the persons were when they died, etc.

Also highly unethical research which probably should be outlawed in the future.
If the size of a skull mater we should have had civilizations started in Siberia and Greenland first, not in Near East. Size of the brain correlates better with climatic zones. Perhaps a bigger brain holds more heat and acts better against freezing. Conversely, smaller brain cools faster and is good for tropics and hot deserts.

LeBrok
26-03-15, 00:28
I do think it's very difficult to separate nature from nurture. A friend of mine thinks the reason Chinese people seem to have a special affinity for math is because they've spent centuries reading a pictographic language, which helped develop their abilities for grasping symbolic language. I'm dubious about that theory simply because of the small percentage of literate people in any country, including China, until recently. I think the value a particular culture places on certain things does affect the skill sets of individuals in that culture. But I don't really know how one would test such ideas with any certainty.
I think Chinese and few others in the area, are the best in repetitive tasks, workaholism, and top participants of organize group activities. Their kids are really great in school environment. It is an organized activity filled with repetitive learning/work. It is only part of the world where workers need to be forced to go home (Japan), and bylaw forbids kids extra after-hours learning after 10 pm (South Korea)!
They are genetically inclined to mentioned activities, which influences their workaholic culture, then culture vindicates and reinforces even harder work, in a positive loop cycle. This longer hours of learning might be behind few extra points of IQ, in this part of the world.

hope
26-03-15, 00:49
Genes..nature.. play their part regarding IQ but environment..nurture.. plays an important part also. Environment can enhance IQ.
Not only how a child is raised but where a child is raised will add or detract to IQ ability and also overall development of a child and thus adult.
Poverty, diet, lack of education, poor healthcare, conflicts etc. have a direct affect on this.You cannot learn if there is no school to go to or you are too hungry or sick to get there or you must care for a younger sibling or walk miles to fetch water.
In many countries children have not the luxury of regular food let alone good diet. They have not the chance of going to school and if they do, it may be for a short time. Young children instead of being at school, are at work whether it is in the home or on the street. Of course we all know these things and how this will show in IQ rates. So undeveloped countries will show a difference in IQ.under such conditions.
In developed countries we have a better ground for the nurture of IQ. We have good healthcare, education system, grants for continued education, etc. So in answer to original question, yes I think wealth of a country insomuch as it can put money into these things will have a bearing on IQ.
However, I am not saying every individual from a developed country will have high IQ rate just as I am not saying everyone from any undeveloped country will have lower IQ. as we know, only that in either case there is the potential for one or the other based on conditions.

bicicleur
26-03-15, 00:55
Another inconvenient truth is that all of these uneducated, poverty stricken people were allowed to enter Europe when they were needed for factory jobs and to do work natives no longer wanted to do...now that the economy has changed, they want them out. You are sometimes stuck with the consequences of your decisions.

That is not true.
At a certain point when these working immigrants were allready here, Belgium allowed 'immigration for family reunion', so these people could call over their family, also very distant family.
The people who arrived under this system now prove to be the ones that are unable nor are interested to integrate themselves. Most of them live on healthcare.
I speak for Belgium but I guess the same applies to many other West-European countries.

bicicleur
26-03-15, 00:57
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Brain_Size_Map.png

Cranial capacity based on 20000 skulls measured in a 1984 study. The results for Egypt might be a clue regarding the origin of Jewish intelligence.

Under no circumstance should this map be taken serious, we don't know the gender distribution of the skulls, malnutrition, sample size for each region, how old the skulls were, how old the persons were when they died, etc.

Also highly unethical research which probably should be outlawed in the future.

Neanderthals had higher cranial capacity than modern humans ..

bicicleur
26-03-15, 01:00
Genes..nature.. play their part regarding IQ but environment..nurture.. plays an important part also. Environment can enhance IQ.
Not only how a child is raised but where a child is raised will add or detract to IQ ability and also overall development of a child and thus adult.
Poverty, diet, lack of education, poor healthcare, conflicts etc. have a direct affect on this.You cannot learn if there is no school to go to or you are too hungry or sick to get there or you must care for a younger sibling or walk miles to fetch water.
In many countries children have not the luxury of regular food let alone good diet. They have not the chance of going to school and if they do, it may be for a short time. Young children instead of being at school, are at work whether it is in the home or on the street. Of course we all know these things and how this will show in IQ rates. So undeveloped countries will show a difference in IQ.under such conditions.
In developed countries we have a better ground for the nurture of IQ. We have good healthcare, education system, grants for continued education, etc. So in answer to original question, yes I think wealth of a country insomuch as it can put money into these things will have a bearing on IQ.
However, I am not saying every individual from a developed country will have high IQ rate just as I am not saying everyone from any undeveloped country will have lower IQ. as we know, only that in either case there is the potential for one or the other based on conditions.

I agree. And I don't think that people with the highest IQ are allways the smartest people.
An IQ test is very selective and does not measure all aspects of intelligence.

bicicleur
26-03-15, 01:02
I think Chinese and few others in the area, are the best in repetitive tasks, workaholism, and top participants of organize group activities. Their kids are really great in school environment. It is an organized activity filled with repetitive learning/work. It is only part of the world where workers need to be forced to go home (Japan), and bylaw forbids kids extra after-hours learning after 10 pm (South Korea)!
They are genetically inclined to mentioned activities, which influences their workaholic culture, then culture vindicates and reinforces even harder work, in a positive loop cycle. This longer hours of learning might be behind few extra points of IQ, in this part of the world.

wouldn't that be rather a matter of culture and attitude than a matter of higher intelligence?

bicicleur
26-03-15, 01:09
I do think it's very difficult to separate nature from nurture. A friend of mine thinks the reason Chinese people seem to have a special affinity for math is because they've spent centuries reading a pictographic language, which helped develop their abilities for grasping symbolic language. I'm dubious about that theory simply because of the small percentage of literate people in any country, including China, until recently. I think the value a particular culture places on certain things does affect the skill sets of individuals in that culture. But I don't really know how one would test such ideas with any certainty.

The issue of the lower IQ part of various populations no longer being needed but breeding more than high IQ people is certainly something that various people, including a few science fiction writers, have talked about. But if a country was really concerned about that issue, there are some obvious things that could be done to address the issue. For example, I was reading something the other day about how developed countries with good daycare systems see a higher birth rate among women who are university graduates.

it is politicians that make the rules
they are interested in people that will vote for them, they are certainly not interested in smarter people

LeBrok
26-03-15, 01:35
wouldn't that be rather a matter of culture and attitude than a matter of higher intelligence?
Yes, though the culture which emphasizes education increases IQ of its population.

Expredel
26-03-15, 01:55
If the size of a skull mater we should have had civilizations started in Siberia and Greenland first, not in Near East.
Greenland has 50000 people and Siberia is mostly inhabited as well, you can't create a civilization without sufficient numbers, this is a very weak argument. We must provide more plausible explanations than that to keep people confused.

LeBrok
26-03-15, 02:48
Greenland has 50000 people and Siberia is mostly inhabited as well, you can't create a civilization without sufficient numbers, this is a very weak argument. We must provide more plausible explanations than that to keep people confused.
True, numbers definitely matter. Civilizations started first in most densely populated places, in farmers' cultures. However the peoples of the North, the Prairie Indians, Inuits, Eskimo or Chukchi, are not doing great in our civilization. They are not the best in schools, they don't have good jobs, they fall into addictions quickly, even though there is a huge financial help of governments these days. The civilization is already invented and everybody willing can join it. Yet, it is not working for them somehow.
Perhaps, the key ingredient is the EEF or ENF genetic admixture of first farmers, with genetic predispositions they carried. All the existing hunter-gatherers, listed above, plus Australian Aborigines and Amazon Indians are lacking this admixture, and all of them have terribly hard time embracing what we call civilization. At least, if there was one example of pure HGs doing well in our world, I would suspect it might be just cultural phenomenon. But it is exactly the same across the board with all existing HGs, with no exception.
In this case the size of a brain doesn't matter as much as internal architecture of it. The new brain wiring changes brought to the people by first farmers.

Maleth
26-03-15, 08:16
Genes..nature.. play their part regarding IQ but environment..nurture.. plays an important part also. Environment can enhance IQ.
Not only how a child is raised but where a child is raised will add or detract to IQ ability and also overall development of a child and thus adult.
Poverty, diet, lack of education, poor healthcare, conflicts etc. have a direct affect on this.You cannot learn if there is no school to go to or you are too hungry or sick to get there or you must care for a younger sibling or walk miles to fetch water.
In many countries children have not the luxury of regular food let alone good diet. They have not the chance of going to school and if they do, it may be for a short time. Young children instead of being at school, are at work whether it is in the home or on the street. Of course we all know these things and how this will show in IQ rates. So undeveloped countries will show a difference in IQ.under such conditions.
In developed countries we have a better ground for the nurture of IQ. We have good healthcare, education system, grants for continued education, etc. So in answer to original question, yes I think wealth of a country insomuch as it can put money into these things will have a bearing on IQ.
However, I am not saying every individual from a developed country will have high IQ rate just as I am not saying everyone from any undeveloped country will have lower IQ. as we know, only that in either case there is the potential for one or the other based on conditions.

Well said hope, also in my opinion, even if a child is brought up in an advanced society that nurtures good health and promotes good education, the type of domestic environment is well known to effect the IQ development irrelevant to all the good systems that are in place.

Maleth
26-03-15, 08:33
by the way as much as I dont agree with these kind of presentations with particular agendas of supremacy (Nordic in this case) such those of Dr. Nyborg, I neither agree that Jews have some kind of super intellect since its brought up here very often. Brain is like a muscle, if the circumstances are as such that you need to use it it will grow stronger and more productive, if you don't use it you will lose it. The world can offer multi type of scenarios to flourish, get by or decline, and it just depends were one happens to be and the stimulation involved in a particular point in time. Things do not happen in one single generation but most of the time its a string of events that take a good number of generations to give a particular result and for very different reasons.

And do not forget that EQ is as relevant as IQ even though it seems to be totally ignored.

7168

bicicleur
26-03-15, 09:25
I totally agree with all you just said here, Maleth

giuseppe rossi
26-03-15, 10:58
Italians have the biggest brain in Europe.

Sorry bros.

From
Richard Lynn RACE DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE

http://www.speedyshare.com/csPbT/Race-Differences-In-Intelligence.pdf

Race Brain Size (cc)
Europeans 1,369
Basques 1,368
Czechs 1,341
Dutch 1,373
French 1,361
Germans 1,391
Italians 1,411
Poles 1,315
Scots 1,316
Swiss 1,408

This is the mean brain sizes of 87 populations worldwide, based on measurements of approximately 20,000 crania, published by Smith and Beals (1990).

Italians have also the highest measured mean IQ in Europe.

That's without recalculations or conversions of data like in the last Lynn's book.

http://www.getiq.net/charts.jsp

hope
26-03-15, 18:01
Well said hope, also in my opinion, even if a child is brought up in an advanced society that nurtures good health and promotes good education, the type of domestic environment is well known to effect the IQ development irrelevant to all the good systems that are in place.
Absolutely Maleth, certainly the domestic environment can have either a positive or negative input, especially during the early cognitive years. All positive input at this time, given within a stable environment, where a child feels safe, will have benefits. What a young child learns first at home and how it is encouraged to view learning can help when they begin school. The time spent reading to your child, singing, playing games etc. will help improve language, reasoning and social skills.
On the other side, a child raised in an environment where they are neglected or have had little time or care invested in them during these early years or indeed have been raised in a stressful environment, may have problems in these areas.

LeBrok
27-03-15, 03:03
Italians have the biggest brain in Europe.

Sorry bros.

From
Richard Lynn RACE DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE

http://www.speedyshare.com/csPbT/Race-Differences-In-Intelligence.pdf

Race Brain Size (cc)
Europeans 1,369
Basques 1,368
Czechs 1,341
Dutch 1,373
French 1,361
Germans 1,391
Italians 1,411
Poles 1,315
Scots 1,316
Swiss 1,408

This is the mean brain sizes of 87 populations worldwide, based on measurements of approximately 20,000 crania, published by Smith and Beals (1990).

Italians have also the highest measured mean IQ in Europe.

That's without recalculations or conversions of data like in the last Lynn's book.

http://www.getiq.net/charts.jsp

Are you really saying that Italians have highest mean IQ, because they have biggest heads in Europe?

Can you find out for us the average cranial size of Romans? They ruled the world one time, perhaps they had the biggest heads too?

PS. Your link doesn't work. And your posted study contradicts the 1984 one posted by bicicleur.

Angela
27-03-15, 03:24
I just saw this...

The map from the 1984 study was actually posted by Expredel, but he didn't provide a link. This is what he had to say about it:

"Under no circumstance should this map be taken serious, we don't know the gender distribution of the skulls, malnutrition, sample size for each region, how old the skulls were, how old the persons were when they died, etc.

Also highly unethical research which probably should be outlawed in the future."

Just for the future, if anyone refers to a study or posts a map, could you please post the link so that the source can be checked? (I'm speaking to myself as well...as I said above, anyone can make a map and put it on the web.)

As for a correlation between skull size and IQ, I thought size didn't matter.

giuseppe rossi
27-03-15, 11:26
The map posted by Expredel is unsourced and is pure nonsense. Japanese and half of Europe with the same brain size of Sub Saharan Africans???

That's even worse astrology than Candille et al.

Richard Lynn quotes Smith and Beals (1990) who measured approximately 20.000 crania of 87 populations worldwide.

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.niggermania.com%2Flibrary%2FR ace%2520Differences%2520In%2520Intelligence.pdf&ei=rR8VVYTYKon9Uu-GhPAL&usg=AFQjCNG16r8PK1VfMZ_hs86agUXQHn1UKw

Mean Brain Size (cc) in Europe.
Europeans 1,369
Basques 1,368
Czechs 1,341
Dutch 1,373
French 1,361
Germans 1,391
Italians 1,411
Poles 1,315
Scots 1,316
Swiss 1,408

Italians (from Sicily, Rome, Apulia and Abruzzo) resemble mostly French, Serbs, and Russians and then other Central Europeans, in Craniometric (Skull) Measures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171282/

look a figure b.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171282/bin/hhe0072-0035-f01.jpg

Tomenable
27-03-15, 13:57
because of the small percentage of literate people in any country, including China, until recently.

I cannot agree. Late Middle Ages saw an increase in literacy rates in Europe, also in central-eastern Europe.

Poland-Lithuania had a relatively high literacy rate in the 15th - 16th centuries, which later declined in the 17th - 18th centuries.

Parochial schools that emerged in the Late Middle Ages spread basic skills such as reading prayer-books, catechisms and counting the main Christian Octaves in calendar. According to book "Golden Autumn of the Polish Middle Ages" by Henryk Samsonowicz, by the end of the reign of Casimir IV Jagiellon (1480s - 1490s) around 4/5 of all parishes in the Kingdom of Poland had a school, and on average there was 1 parochial school per 800 inhabitants. In the Archdiocese of Gniezno the number of parishes was 4000 and the number of schools in the countryside and in towns was 3500 (including also cathedral schools and monastic schools).

So I would say that in the 15th - 16th centuries even most of peasants in Poland-Lithuania had some basic level of literacy.

Literacy declined in the 17th century when serfdom was re-introduced (google: "the refeudalization of eastern Europe in the early modern period").


The results for Egypt might be a clue regarding the origin of Jewish intelligence.

According to H. Harpending & G. Cochran high Ashkenazi Jewish IQ evolved under selective pressures during the Middle Ages.

They suggest that more intelligent Jews had more surviving children than less intelligent Jews and the average IQ was gradually increasing.

Check:

"The 10,000 Year Explosion - How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution":

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-10000-year-explosion-how-civilization-accelerated-human-evolution-2009-by-gregory-cochran-henry-harpending.pdf

"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence":

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

==================================

That was the case not only with Jews but also with other European Medieval populations, only perhaps to a lesser degree.

Studies on Medieval family size show that wealthy people had more surviving children than poor people throughout most of Europe.

In Poland-Lithuania of the 15th - 16th centuries wealthy peasants had 1,6 - 2 surviving sons per father, while peasants of average wealth had 1,1 - 1,5 (where replacement fertility = 1,05 sons per father = 2,1 children per father). Poor peasants probably had sub-replacement fertility. That was more related to wealth than to class, because medium nobles had 2 - 2,1 (the same as wealthy peasants) and magnates (very rich nobles) had 2,9. Poor nobles probably had less than 2.

In 16th - 17th centuries in England fathers with assets at death lower than 25 pounds had sub-replacement fertility (less than 2,1 surviving children).

By surviving I mean surviving to adulthood, so that they could have their own children.

====================

From Nicholas Wade, "A Troublesome Inheritance...", New York 2014:

https://atroublesomeinheritance.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/nicholas-wade-a-troublesome-inheritance_-genes-race-and-human-history-penguin-press-hc-the-20141.pdf

(...) Clark has uncovered the simple genetic mechanism through which the Malthusian economy wrought these changes on the English population: the rich had more surviving children than did the poor. From a study of wills made between 1585 and 1638, he finds that will makers with £9 or less to leave their heirs had, on average, just under two children. The number of heirs rose steadily with assets, such that men with more than £1,000 in their gift, who formed the wealthiest asset class, left just over four children. The English population was fairly stable in size from 1200 to 1760. In this context, the fact that the rich were having more children than the poor led to the interesting phenomenon of unremitting social descent. Most children of the rich had to sink in the social scale, given that there were too many of them to remain in the upper class. Their social descent had the far-reaching genetic consequence that they carried with them inheritance for the same behaviors that had made their parents rich. The values of the upper middle class - nonviolence, literacy, thrift and patience - were thus infused into lower economic classes and throughout society. Generation after generation, they gradually became the values of the society as a whole. This explains the steady decrease in violence and increase in literacy that Clark has documented for the English population. Moreover, the behaviors emerged gradually over several centuries, a time course more typical of an evolutionary change than a cultural change. (...)

http://s7.postimg.org/mice5ufh7/Rich_had_more_children.png

And here the data for Poland-Lithuania:

http://homoeconomicus.uwb.edu.pl/pdf/Struktury_demograficzne.pdf

From page 21 (number of sons per father who lived to their adulthood):

http://s4.postimg.org/aqlvs7wwd/Poland_growth.png

^ Note that English graph shows children per family (couple), while Polish graph shows sons per father.

So in case of English graph replacement fertility is 2,1 while in case of Polish graph it is 1,05.

4 surviving children in English graph, is equivalent to 2 sons living to adulthood in Polish graph.


it might not have been a good idea for Europe to try to exterminate its Ashkenazi Jews

Indeed. Germans exterminated millions of Ashkenazi Jews, who have the highest average IQ of all ethnic groups - imagine how many potential Nobel Prize winners did Germans exterminate! Ethnic Jews were especially successful (in relation to Gentiles) in Germany itself, where they excelled ethnic Germans in efficiency and influence 22 times according to Charles Murray. Jews were over 20% of all significant figures in Germany in 1870 - 1950, despite being only 0,9% of citizens (graph from Charles Murray, "Human Accomplishment", 2003):

http://s28.postimg.org/jehmgvz3x/Jewish_Gentile_ratio.png

http://s28.postimg.org/jehmgvz3x/Jewish_Gentile_ratio.png

Those were also Germans who incited Anti-Semitism among Christians, according to Jewish-American author, Theodore Newman Kaufman:

http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.shtml

"(...) Germanism Abroad

True Germanism, being as it is a purely primitive paganism with some modern "refinements" finds that it can express itself best by committing barbaric and bestial acts of violence against civilized peoples. Thus, if Germanism were ever to prevail upon this earth we can be sure that every step would be taken though few indeed are these steps which the Germans have not already taken! to reawaken every dormant animal instinct and vicious trait in man. Thus it has been a chief aim of the German to eradicate each and every one of the three principal religions from this earth. However, the German was practical enough to realize that he could not successfully combat all the religions at one time with any hope of emerging supreme. But since their extinction was absolutely necessary to the propagation of the German dogma of hate and destruction, the Germans conceived their now infamous and ofttried trick of pitting first the believers in one religion against those of another until, at a single coup, they could deliver the final knock-out blow against the single remaining adversary. It was in Austria that they first tested the efficiency of their scheme, a test which, at that time, actually constituted organized high treason against that country. Germanism had its birth in Austria as an organized movement founded and headed by an Austrian statesman, one Schoenerer, in 1878. Its activity was rather limited in scope until 1898 when Schoenerer joined with Hasse; from that time on the Pan-German League in Berlin became the head of the movement in Austria, and it proceeded at once to establish permanent bases of operation in that country. First a plan of attack was decided upon. Hasse and Schoenerer agreed that if Germany was ever to rule over Austria the latter country must first be forced to break with Rome (Roman Catholicism). In order to achieve this objective the leaders decided upon a roundabout course of action. They therefore first created an artificially stimulated pseudo-religious revivalist movement having anti-Semitism as its primary and immediate purpose. The German Hasse found some renegade, so-called Catholics (though such men were no more Catholics in spirit than those men of any religion who, hiding behind a pulpit of a church, rail against God and preach hatred and intolerance) members of the leading Catholic Party, who agreed to act as leaders of such a movement. It was not long thereafter that a frightful wave of anti-Semitic persecution began to sweep over Austria, continuing unabated in intensity, until Schoenerer and Hasse felt that a sufficiently high degree of agitation and terrorism had been reached. Thereupon they turned their efforts against the Catholic Party and in turn, started a rabid anti-Catholic, "free from-Rome" movement of their own, Schoenerer declaring that "the chains which tie us to a Church hostile to Germanism must be broken." The "No Popery" and anti-Catholic agitation was stimulated by Hasse and Schoenerer through their introduction into Austria of numerous pseudo-evangelical, free-booter German clergymen who were liberally paid, with money and liquor, to rail against the Catholics. Though the complete success of this plan was not achieved, it did have a salutary effect; that of establishing and proving that audacity and ruthless aggressiveness of the German. (...)"

Tomenable
27-03-15, 13:58
because of the small percentage of literate people in any country, including China, until recently.

I cannot agree. Late Middle Ages saw an increase in literacy rates in Europe, also in central-eastern Europe.

Poland-Lithuania had a relatively high literacy rate in the 15th - 16th centuries, which declined in the late 17th - 18th centuries.

Parochial schools that emerged in the Late Middle Ages spread basic skills such as reading prayer-books, catechisms, and counting the main Christian Octaves in calendar. According to "The Golden Autumn of the Polish Middle Ages" by Henryk Samsonowicz, by the end of the reign of Casimir IV Jagiellon (1480s - 1490s) around 4/5 of all parishes in the Kingdom of Poland had a school, and on average there was 1 parochial school per 800 inhabitants. In the Archdiocese of Gniezno the number of parishes was 4000 and the number of schools in the countryside and in towns was 3500 (this number includes not only parochial schools but also cathedral schools and monastic schools).

So I would say that in the 15th - 16th centuries even many peasants in Poland-Lithuania had some basic level of literacy. Literacy declined in the 17th century when serfdom was re-introduced (google: "the refeudalization of eastern Europe in the early modern period").


The results for Egypt might be a clue regarding the origin of Jewish intelligence.

As for a correlation between skull size and IQ, I thought size didn't matter.

Indeed cranial capacity has only a very limited correlation with IQ, other factors seem to be much more important - check this article:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-head-sizeraceiq-trainwreck/

There seem to be a very small correlation, but in general race and ethnicity seem to correlate better with IQ than does skull size.

==================================

As for Jewish intelligence - looking for the roots of it in Ancient Egypt is pointless, since it is a more recent phenomenon.

According to H. Harpending & G. Cochran high Ashkenazi Jewish IQ evolved under strong selective pressures in the Middle Ages. They suggest that more intelligent Jews had more surviving children than less intelligent Jews and the average IQ was gradually increasing.

Check:

"The 10,000 Year Explosion - How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution":

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-10000-year-explosion-how-civilization-accelerated-human-evolution-2009-by-gregory-cochran-henry-harpending.pdf

"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence":

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

==================================

That was the case not only with Jews but also with other European Medieval populations, only perhaps to a lesser degree.

Studies on Medieval family size show that wealthy people had more surviving children than poor people throughout most of Europe.

In Poland-Lithuania of the 15th - 16th centuries wealthy peasants had 1,6 - 2 surviving sons per father, while peasants of average wealth had 1,1 - 1,5 (where replacement fertility = 1,05 sons per father = 2,1 children per father). Poor peasants probably had sub-replacement fertility. That was more related to wealth than to class, because medium nobles had 2 - 2,1 (the same as wealthy peasants) and magnates (very rich nobles) had 2,9. Poor nobles probably had less than 2. This only refers to sons, so multiply x2 if you want sons + daughters.

In the 16th - 17th centuries in England fathers with assets at death lower than 25 pounds also had a sub-replacement fertility (less than 2,1 surviving children). By "surviving children" I mean those surviving to adulthood, so that they could have their own children.

====================

From Nicholas Wade, "A Troublesome Inheritance...", New York 2014:

https://atroublesomeinheritance.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/nicholas-wade-a-troublesome-inheritance_-genes-race-and-human-history-penguin-press-hc-the-20141.pdf

"(...) Clark has uncovered the simple genetic mechanism through which the Malthusian economy wrought these changes on the English population: the rich had more surviving children than did the poor. From a study of wills made between 1585 and 1638, he finds that will makers with £9 or less to leave their heirs had, on average, just under two children. The number of heirs rose steadily with assets, such that men with more than £1,000 in their gift, who formed the wealthiest asset class, left just over four children. The English population was fairly stable in size from 1200 to 1760. In this context, the fact that the rich were having more children than the poor led to the interesting phenomenon of unremitting social descent. Most children of the rich had to sink in the social scale, given that there were too many of them to remain in the upper class. Their social descent had the far-reaching genetic consequence that they carried with them inheritance for the same behaviors that had made their parents rich. The values of the upper middle class - nonviolence, literacy, thrift and patience - were thus infused into lower economic classes and throughout society. Generation after generation, they gradually became the values of the society as a whole. This explains the steady decrease in violence and increase in literacy that Clark has documented for the English population. Moreover, the behaviors emerged gradually over several centuries, a time course more typical of an evolutionary change than a cultural change. (...)"

http://s7.postimg.org/mice5ufh7/Rich_had_more_children.png

And here the data for Poland-Lithuania:

http://homoeconomicus.uwb.edu.pl/pdf/Struktury_demograficzne.pdf

From page 21 (number of sons per father who lived to their adulthood):

http://s4.postimg.org/aqlvs7wwd/Poland_growth.png

^ Note that the English graph shows children per family (couple), while the Polish graph shows sons per father.

So in case of the English graph replacement fertility is 2,1 while in case of the Polish graph it is 1,05.

4 children living to adulthood in the English graph, is equivalent to 2 sons living to adulthood in the Polish graph.

===============================

The same pattern was also observed among Ashkenazi Jews - from Harpending's "The 10,000 Year Explosion":

From pages 199 (214) - 200 (215) of the PDF book in the link posted above:

"(...) Jews who were particularly good at these high-complexity jobs enjoyed increased reproductive success. As Weinryb noted: “More children survived to adulthood in affluent families than in less affluent ones. A number of genealogies of business leaders, prominent rabbis, community leaders, and the like - generally belonging to the more affluent classes show that such people often had four, six, sometimes even eight or nine children who reached adulthood. On the other hand, there are some indications that poorer families tended to be small ones. It should also be added that overcrowding, which favors epidemics, was more prevalent among the poorer classes.” In short, Weinryb wrote, “the number of children surviving among Polish Jews seems to have varied considerably from one social level to another.” He also suggested that wealthier Jews were less crowded, as they lived in bigger houses; could keep their houses warmer; could afford wet-nurses; and had better access to rural refuges from epidemics. As an example, he cites a census of the town of Brody in 1764 showing that homeowner households had 1.2 children per adult member, while tenant households had 0.6. (...)"


it might not have been a good idea for Europe to try to exterminate its Ashkenazi Jews

Indeed. Germans exterminated millions of Ashkenazi Jews, who have the highest average IQ of all ethnic groups - imagine how many potential Nobel Prize winners died. Ethnic Jews were especially successful (in relation to Gentiles) in Germany itself, where they excelled ethnic Germans in high-ranking accomplishment 22 times according to Charles Murray - Jews were over 20% of all significant figures in Germany in 1870 - 1950, despite being only 0,9% of all citizens (graph from Charles Murray, "Human Accomplishment", 2003):

http://s28.postimg.org/jehmgvz3x/Jewish_Gentile_ratio.png

http://s28.postimg.org/jehmgvz3x/Jewish_Gentile_ratio.png

Charles Murray, "Human Accomplishment. The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950", 2003:

https://www.gwern.net/docs/2003-murray-human-accomplishment.pdf

According to Jewish-American author, Theodore Newman Kaufman, those were Germans who incited Anti-Semitism among Christians:

http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.shtml

"(...) Germanism Abroad

True Germanism, being as it is a purely primitive paganism with some modern "refinements" finds that it can express itself best by committing barbaric and bestial acts of violence against civilized peoples. Thus, if Germanism were ever to prevail upon this earth we can be sure that every step would be taken though few indeed are these steps which the Germans have not already taken! to reawaken every dormant animal instinct and vicious trait in man. Thus it has been a chief aim of the German to eradicate each and every one of the three principal religions from this earth. However, the German was practical enough to realize that he could not successfully combat all the religions at one time with any hope of emerging supreme. But since their extinction was absolutely necessary to the propagation of the German dogma of hate and destruction, the Germans conceived their now infamous and ofttried trick of pitting first the believers in one religion against those of another until, at a single coup, they could deliver the final knock-out blow against the single remaining adversary. It was in Austria that they first tested the efficiency of their scheme, a test which, at that time, actually constituted organized high treason against that country. Germanism had its birth in Austria as an organized movement founded and headed by an Austrian statesman, one Schoenerer, in 1878. Its activity was rather limited in scope until 1898 when Schoenerer joined with Hasse; from that time on the Pan-German League in Berlin became the head of the movement in Austria, and it proceeded at once to establish permanent bases of operation in that country. First a plan of attack was decided upon. Hasse and Schoenerer agreed that if Germany was ever to rule over Austria the latter country must first be forced to break with Rome (Roman Catholicism). In order to achieve this objective the leaders decided upon a roundabout course of action. They therefore first created an artificially stimulated pseudo-religious revivalist movement having anti-Semitism as its primary and immediate purpose. The German Hasse found some renegade, so-called Catholics (though such men were no more Catholics in spirit than those men of any religion who, hiding behind a pulpit of a church, rail against God and preach hatred and intolerance) members of the leading Catholic Party, who agreed to act as leaders of such a movement. It was not long thereafter that a frightful wave of anti-Semitic persecution began to sweep over Austria, continuing unabated in intensity, until Schoenerer and Hasse felt that a sufficiently high degree of agitation and terrorism had been reached. Thereupon they turned their efforts against the Catholic Party and in turn, started a rabid anti-Catholic, "free from-Rome" movement of their own, Schoenerer declaring that "the chains which tie us to a Church hostile to Germanism must be broken." The "No Popery" and anti-Catholic agitation was stimulated by Hasse and Schoenerer through their introduction into Austria of numerous pseudo-evangelical, free-booter German clergymen who were liberally paid, with money and liquor, to rail against the Catholics. Though the complete success of this plan was not achieved, it did have a salutary effect; that of establishing and proving that audacity and ruthless aggressiveness of the German. (...)"

=============================

Back to IQ:

How Medieval feudalism and manorialism in Europe increased selective pressures leading to gradual increase of European IQ:

"(...) Inheritance for peasants did not normally extend beyond the next of kin, and an eligible heir had to be produced on each holding or there was a risk of reversion to the lord. The feudal mode of production was thus characterized by a strong linkage of landholding to marriage and marriage to procreation. Those without land could not easily marry, and those with land had to marry and produce offspring to keep the holding productive and in the family. Only legitimate offspring (i.e., those sanctified by wedlock) could succeed to a holding. The timing of marriage was normally dependent on entry to a holding, and marriage was the principal social regulator of fertility. The land-poor therefore tended to marry later than well-established peasants, and to raise fewer children. The poorest stratum did not reproduce their own numbers in most periods. The population grew by means of a molecular process of downward mobility engendered within peasant families. Those young adults who were not favoured by inheritance and lost out in the scramble for established village holdings became the mass labour force of the system’s extensive growth, moving to the periphery and clearing new land. (...)"

In modern Europe there is the opposite trend - thanks to welfare systems, poor people tend to have more children than rich people. People with no education tend to have children earlier (and - in total - more of them) than people who continue education at universities. According to Michael A. Woodley, due to this kind of relaxation of selective pressures, European IQ is already on the decline since ca. 1850:

Michael A. Woodley, "The social and scientific temporal correlates of genotypic intelligence and the Flynn effect":

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611001620

"(...) Some of Woodley’s main points include: IQ rose among European populations from the Middle Ages to the present, reaching a 105 average in 1850, and has since declined (...)"

Europe is dumbing down since ca. 1850 even without immigration - average IQ among native Europeans is also declining.

====================================

BTW - Hitler's extermination of European Jewry prevented their assimilation into and integration with European societies. This has taken place in the USA on the other hand, where Americans of Jewish descent now frequently intermarry with Non-Jewish Americans.

giuseppe rossi
27-03-15, 14:56
There is a very strong correlation between brain size controlled for height and weight and the mean IQ.

Just read the RACE DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE by Richard Lynn.

Tomenable
27-03-15, 14:59
Nope. The correlation between cranial capacity and IQ is small (about 0.10).

There are some African populations with large brain size (controlled for height and weight), who still have low IQ.

======================

Buj in 1981 tested the IQ of 10,737 Europeans:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=P_fycMB5VuMC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Buj+1980+European+IQ&source=bl&ots=CP72kuVCGQ&sig=9K0rqrJXnBlCYIVa9Hw3pFTszPI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mlQVVardAoXkaunegOAL&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Buj%201980%20European%20IQ&f=false

http://s4.postimg.org/bsj0m2qb1/Buj_1980.png

Here are the results of Buj's 1981 study:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/single/?p=674820&t=4513114

http://i36.tinypic.com/i5ygp1.jpg

Surprisingly they are pretty consistent with Richard Lynn's first edition:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?163762-The-smartest-Europeans-are-the-Austrians-Italians-Germans-and-Dutch&p=3477172&viewfull=1#post3477172


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zugMl3qvKI

giuseppe rossi
27-03-15, 15:30
I've read your "sources" and they look like nonsense.

Moreover Richard Lynn quotes Smith and Beals (1990) who measured approximately 20.000 crania of 87 populations worldwide, while your source quotes the older and wronger Beals et al., 1984.

Read the book of Richard Lynn and you will see that there is a very strong correlation between mean IQ and brain size.

Tomenable
27-03-15, 16:06
European brains are getting smaller for the last 10,000 years - had there been a very strong correlation, it would have meant modern Europeans are dumber than cavemen:

http://johnhawks.net/research/hawks-2011-brain-size-selection-holocene/

"(...) The greatest temporal detail is available from Europe, reviewed by Henneberg Henneberg:1988b. Samples of up to several thousand skulls have estimates of endocranial volume. The largest set of these are based on external measurements, corrected for average vault thickness. The literature also includes a substantial number of direct measurements of endocranial volume by seed or water displacement. Henneberg Henneberg:1988b reports a Mesolithic mean endocranial volume for males of 1567 ml (based on internal cranial module of 144.1). This estimate is based on a relatively small sample of 35 individuals. For Neolithic and Eneolithic samples, with 1017 individuals, the mean endocranial volume estimate reduced to 1496 ml (internal cranial module 141.9), Bronze and Iron Age samples had a mean estimate of 1468 ml (internal cranial module 141.0), Roman period mean estimate 1452 ml (internal cranial module 140.5), and Early Middle Ages 1449 (internal cranial module 140.4). Late Middle Ages had a mean estimate 1418 (internal cranial module 139.4), and Modern Times'' (which comprises post-Medieval samples) corresponded to a mean estimate of 1391 ml. (...)"

Brains have been getting smaller also after controlling for body mass and stature:

"(...) Stature estimates exist for a broad sample of ancient European populations, showing approximate stasis in stature during the last 4000–6000 years. Over the same time period, the estimated endocranial volume declined slightly more than 100 ml in Europe from an estimated 1496 ml to 1391 ml. This decline cannot be explained by decreases in stature, because the stature did not change. Additionally, although these early samples are small, Mesolithic Europeans had larger endocranial volumes than Upper Paleolithic Europeans, across the same interval when they underwent a substantial decline in stature. That Mesolithic change in endocranial volume is in the opposite direction expected from the change in stature. (...)"

"(...) Body mass is related to brain size in humans with a phenotypic correlation of r≈0.29. The standard deviation of male body mass within recent human populations ranges around 11 kg, a value near the midpoint of within-sex variation in other primate species Smith:Jungers:1997. Using these values along with the others listed in Table 1, selection on body mass would be expected to reduce the mean endocranial volume by 4.3 ml for each kilogram of reduction in body mass.
The decline in body mass in human populations during the last 10,000 years has been estimated as less than 5 kg, or less than a 10 percent reduction in mass from a Late Upper Paleolithic mean of some 63 kg Ruff:1997. A decline of 5 kg would predict a decrease in endocranial volume only around 22 ml. The observed decline in several regions (including Europe, China, Southern Africa, and Australia) is between 100 and 150 ml during the past 10,000 years. Therefore, the reduction in body mass would be expected to have decreased brain size by only one-fifth to one-seventh the observed decline.
We can look at the inverse question: how much reduction in body mass would be required to cause a 150 ml reduction in endocranial volume? Using the same ratio (4.3 ml per kilogram body mass), the endocranial volume contrast would predict a reduction of 34 kg. This value is implausibly high, by more than a factor of five. The reduction of endocranial volume in these populations is not well explained by body mass according to equation 1. Selection for smaller mass is insufficient to account for reduction in brain size or vault dimensions. (...)"

A similar decrease of brain size was observed in domesticated animals:

"(...) The decline of human endocranial volume during the last 10,000 years is paralleled most obviously by the reductions of brain size in domesticated animal species, including dogs, cattle and sheep, compared to their wild progenitors. Nutritional, developmental, and functional issues are all possible explanations for these parallel cases of brain size reduction. (...)"

==========================

BTW - Homo Erectus speciman named "Bodo" from 600,000 years ago had brain size close to 1,250 cm3:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2752549/

The book you cited shows that some modern human ethnic groups have lower average brain size than "Bodo".

"Bodo" was quite exceptional though, because the average brain size in Homo Erectus was 1,100 cm3, IIRC.

===========================

This paper claims that average cranial volume in modern Africans is 1,268 cm3:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf

But there are different methods of measurement, which give different results:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
(http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf)
East Asian have larger brains than Europeans no matter which method is used:

https://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correlates-with-iq/

https://abc102.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/screen-shot-2012-03-25-at-3-55-19-pm.png

Angela
27-03-15, 16:38
Tomenable: Here are the results of Buj's 1981 study:

By all means, let's hunt for a study that presents our own ethnic group in the best possible light in terms of IQ, and ignore the others. What an edifying spectacle!

The Buj study does indeed show a normalized mean IQ for Poles of 105 versus 102 for Italians. Jaworowska and Szustrowa 1991, however, gives a mean for Poles of 92. Plus, has anyone ever heard of "within the margin of error"? (I also highly doubt that IQ tests should not include a verbal component, but that's a separate issue.)

For Germans, depending on the study, the IQ score ranges from 90 to 107, for the French from 94 to 102. What does this tell us? It should tell us that we don't have good studies. You need to have careful and uniform sample selection, and you need to control for age, type of test, when administered, etc. Then, if such a study were actually done, given that these kind of mass tests are really performance tests to some degree, how do you factor in for the quality of the educational system? To get a real measure would require sitting tens of thousands of young children down with an educational psychologist who is going to spend hours with them measuring things like digit recall and speed of processing. Don't any of you have experience with this personally?

As I stated before, the only thing that these tests are good at predicting is performance at university. In the real world, other factors come into play in terms of professional and financial success, at least unless you're spending all day by yourself in front of a computer...things like social and emotional intelligence, for example. Do you think that in terms of whether you can start a thriving business or become CEO of a large company (once you have a high average IQ of, say, over 110 or 115) that the determining factor is whether someone has an IQ of 115 versus 125?

Even in terms of Nobel prizes, studies show that over a certain IQ, it isn't the highest IQ people who get them, necessarily...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sudden-genius/201101/is-high-intelligence-necessary-be-genius

Eysenck (1983), Simonton (1984) and Torrance (1974) have conducted research that suggests a correlation of IQ and creativity only up to about 120. Tunco also confirmed 120 as an important threshold for creativity.

Tomenable
27-03-15, 16:43
As for the shrinking of European (and not just European) brains during the last 10,000 years. There is a correlation between brain size and IQ, but correlation does not always imply causation - especially given the evolutionary processes. It would be ridiculous to assume that Europeans were more intelligent in Mesolithic times than in the Early Modern Era and in the Industrial Era, only because their skulls were bigger.

Selection for smaller brain was most probably driven - possibly also among other factors - by perinatal mortality (stillbirths).

Bigger head of child means harder birth and greater chance of dying for both infant and mother.

However, at the same time there was another selective pressure - selection for higher intelligence, driven by civilization.

So - all in all - evolution promoted the survival of people with "more efficient" brains (i.e. small enough to reduce risk at birth, but intelligent). Under such diverse selective pressures Europeans managed to get smarter despite their decreasing average brain size.


The Buj study does indeed show a normalized mean IQ for Poles of 105 versus 102 for Italians. Jaworowska and Szustrowa 1991, however, gives a mean for Poles of 92. Plus, has anyone ever heard of "within the margin of error"?

Richard Lynn & Tatu Vanhannen in their 2012 "Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences":

http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Vanhanen_2012_INTELLIGENCE_-_A_Unifying_Construct_for_the_Social_Sciences.pdf

Give a mean national IQ of 96.1 for Italy and a mean national IQ of 96.1 for Poland.

Raven 2008 gives a mean national IQ for Poland as 102 (sample size 756).

Buj had a sample size of 835 for his Polish IQ of 106.

Another study for Poland (I don't remember the author & year - but it is quoted by Lynn in one of his books) gave 99.

Basso et al. in their 1987 study gave for Italians 76 (sample size 138) - I wonder if there is a typo here [96 / 86 instead of 76?].

Pace & Sprini in their 1998 study gave a mean national IQ for Italians as 90 (sample size 5370).

Belacchi et al. in their 2008 study gave a mean national IQ for Italians as 95 (sample size 1378).

=============================

As you can see results vary dramatically between studies.

Creating a "ranking" of European IQs is pointless because all Europeans have similar mean IQs.

Another example of different scores in each study is Germany - Kurth, 1969 gave a mean national IQ for Germany as 90. Buj, 1981 as 107. Guthke & Al-Zoubi, 1987 as 97. Raven 1995 as 97. Roivainen 2010 as 101. Georgas et. al. 2003 as 99. Winkelman 1972 as 99.

Similar differences between studies.

Most of differences in IQ between European ethnic groups in various studies are due to sampling errors.

Hence in one study X Europeans have higher IQ than Y Europeans, while another study may show the opposite pattern.

Tomenable
27-03-15, 17:28
As I stated before, the only thing that these tests are good at predicting is performance at university.

Probably not even this.

Some very intelligent people have never graduated (both historical figures & modern ones - among the latter e.g. Christopher M. Langan):

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggur-Ca2nzs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggur-Ca2nzs

Christopher Langan has a confirmed, measured IQ of 200:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-788Upky2Y

High IQ surely helps at university, but first and foremost you need other personality traits:

Binet and Simson - "For success in scholastic studies there is need for qualities that depend above all on attention, will, character (for instance, a certain docility), a regularity of habits, and especially on continuity of effort."

Which is for example why even people with 200 IQ can fail to have a university graduate diploma (example: mentioned above Mr C. Langan).

Knight - "A high degree of cognitive ability is often accompanied by a temperamental aversion from continuous work, by a lack of persistence and perseverance."

Spearman - "Obviously intelligence alone would never make a big man of any sort. For it measures only the cognitive aspect of mental activity."

That's why Spearman invented "general intelligence" which "appears to indicate something in addition to cognitive ability (IQ)":

"General intelligence is the ability to perceive, comprehend, and reason, combined with the capacity to choose worth-while subjects for study, eagerness to acquire, use, transmit, and if possible add to knowledge and understanding, and the faculty for sustained effort towards these ends. A person is intelligent in so far as his cognitive ability and personality tend towards productiveness through mental activity. One of the most obvious effects of general intelligence is the ability to succeed in ordinary examinations at school or university, or in the similar ones that psychologists call achievement tests but for which the term attainment tests is preferred here. If all the testees subjected to such tests had experienced the same environments throughout life, the results would give some indication of their relative general intelligences."

So, high IQ is helpful in life (just like, for example, good looks), but high IQ alone doesn't guarantee success in anything.

Also:


Witty and Theman made a study of 24 African-American school children with tested IQ scores of 140 and above and found out that "although the highly gifted African-American usually goes on to fulfil her or his early promise, failure is also frequent."

So high IQ is not always a cure for pathological culture and upbringing.

=====================

Some other definitions of intelligence I found:

E. G. Boring - "Intelligence, by definition, is what intelligence tests measure."

Binet - "Intelligence reveals itself by the best possible adaptation of the individual to his environment."

"Intelligence is conscious adaptation to new situations."

"The ability to utilize previous experience in meeting new situations."

"The ability to act effectively under given conditions."

"The ability to learn and to utilize in new situations knowledge or skill acquired by learning."

"Selective adaptation through acquired knowledge."

William Stern - "The general ability of an individual to engage his thought consciously on new requirements; it is general mental ability to adapt to new tasks and conditions of life."

"The power of attention."

"The ability to reason well and to form sound judgements."

"The ability to think in abstract terms."

Angela
27-03-15, 17:52
Tomenable:European brains are getting smaller for the last 10,000 years - had there been a very strong correlation, it would have meant modern Europeans are dumber than cavemen:

I'm aware that Cro-Magnon, for example, had bigger brains, but they were also brawnier, so you have to factor in the effect of size. However, you're assuming they were not more intelligent, when in actuality their level of intelligence is unknown to us.


Tomenable: East Asian have larger brains than Europeans no matter which method is used:

Well, they also have the highest recorded IQ scores, so I don't see how that advances your argument.


Tomenable:A similar decrease of brain size was observed in domesticated animals:

"(...) The decline of human endocranial volume during the last 10,000 years is paralleled most obviously by the reductions of brain size in domesticated animal species, including dogs, cattle and sheep, compared to their wild progenitors. Nutritional, developmental, and functional issues are all possible explanations for these parallel cases of brain size reduction. (...)"

You might want to take a look at this: Does Domestication Produce Dummies:
http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/04/01/domesticated-dummies/

This is a populist analysis of the different points of view with regard to the correlation of brain volume and intelligence:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

Hawks does indeed think our brains have gotten more efficient.

However, for a contrary point of view...

“You may not want to hear this,” says cognitive scientist David Geary (http://web.missouri.edu/%7Egearyd/) of the University of Missouri, “but I think the best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory.” Geary is referring to the eponymous 2006 film by Mike Judge (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) about an ordinary guy who becomes involved in a hibernation experiment at the dawn of the 21st century. When he wakes up 500 years later, he is easily the smartest person on the dumbed-down planet. “I think something a little bit like that happened to us,” Geary says. In other words, idiocracy is where we are now."

"Another popular theory attributes the decrease to the advent of agriculture, which, paradoxically, had the initial effect of worsening nutrition. Quite simply, the first farmers were not very successful at eking out a living from the land, and their grain-heavy diet was deficient in protein and vitamins—critical for fueling growth of the body and brain. In response to chronic malnutrition, our body and brain might have shrunk. Many anthropologists are skeptical of that explanation, however. The reason: The agricultural revolution did not arrive in Australia or southern Africa until almost contemporary times, yet brain size has declined since the Stone Age in those places, too."

"Bailey and Geary found population density did indeed track closely with brain size, but in a surprising way. When population numbers were low, as was the case for most of our evolution, the cranium kept getting bigger. But as population went from sparse to dense in a given area, cranial size declined, highlighted by a sudden 3 to 4 percent drop in EQ starting around 15,000 to 10,000 years ago. “We saw that trend in Europe, China, Africa, Malaysia—everywhere we looked,” Geary says.

The observation led the researchers to a radical conclusion: As complex societies emerged, the brain became smaller because people did not have to be as smart to stay alive. As Geary explains, individuals who would not have been able to survive by their wits alone could scrape by with the help of others—supported, as it were, by the first social safety nets".

“Practically speaking,” he explains, “our ancestors were not our intellectual or creative equals because they lacked the same kind of cultural support. The rise of agriculture and modern cities based on economic specialization has allowed the very brightest people to focus their efforts in the sciences, the arts, and other fields. Their ancient counterparts didn’t have that infrastructure to support them. It took all their efforts just to get through life.”

Tamer but dumber?

"Other researchers think many of their colleagues are barking up the wrong tree with their focus on intelligence as the key to the riddle of our disappearing gray matter. What may have caused the trend instead, they argue, is selection against aggression. In essence, we domesticated ourselves, according to Richard Wrangham (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Eprimates/), a primatologist at Harvard University and a leading proponent of this view."

"So what breeding effect might have sent humans down the same path? Wrangham offers a blunt response: capital punishment. “Over the last 100,000 years,” he theorizes, “language became sufficiently sophisticated that when you had some bully who was a repeat offender, people got together and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about Joe.’ And they would make a calm, deliberate decision to kill Joe or expel him from the group—the functional equivalent of executing him.” Anthropological records on hunter-gatherers suggest that capital punishment has been a regular feature of our species, according to Wrangham. In two recent and well-documented studies of New Guinea groups following ancient tribal custom, the ultimate punishment appears to be meted out to at least 10 percent of the young men in each generation. The story written in our bones is that we look more and more peaceful over the last 50,000 years,” Wrangham says. And that is not all. If he is correct, domestication has also transformed our cognitive style."

"For more insight, Hare is now studying other primates, notably bonobos. He tells me he suspects that these great apes are domesticated chimps (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_03.html). As if on cue, bursts of exotic, birdlike trills suddenly drown out his voice over the phone. “Sorry about that,” he shouts over the line. “Those are the bonobos.” It turns out that as I am speaking to him, Hare is not at his desk at Duke but in a Congo forest where the bonobos live. “Bonobos look and behave like juvenile chimps,” he continues. “They are gracile. They never show lethal aggression and do not kill each other. They also have brains that are 20 percent smaller than those of chimps.”


For yet another theory: Jantz-"His theory: In earlier periods, when famine was more common, people with unusually large brains would have been at greater peril of starving to death because of gray matter’s prodigious energy requirements. But with the unprecedented abundance of food in more recent times, those selective forces have relaxed, reducing the evolutionary cost of a large brain."

Angela
27-03-15, 17:56
There is a very strong correlation between brain size controlled for height and weight and the mean IQ.

Just read the RACE DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE by Richard Lynn.

I don't know if I'd call it a "high" correlation, but there does seem to be a correlation:

Structural brain variation and general intelligence (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811904002332)

RJ Haier, RE Jung (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cccJpl0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra), RA Yeo, K Head, MT Alkire - NeuroImage, 2004-

Follow the link on this google scholar page to the study:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=Correlation+of+brain+size+to+intelligence&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&as_vis=1

"Total brain volume accounts for about 16% of the variance in general intelligence scores."

Also, "total brain volume assessed by MRI in many studies has been shown to correlate about r = 0.40 with intelligence scores."

Also see :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289604001357

Sennevini
27-03-15, 18:46
I know a lot of very intelligent people who just can't cope with this extravert society we have;
they overanalyze what people might think about them and therefore block themselves in doing what they can.
I think that's a shame, because introvert people (often, but certainly not always connected with high intelligence)
are also important for everyone.

Tomenable
27-03-15, 19:34
Well, they also have the highest recorded IQ scores

Not all East Asians have the highest recorded IQ scores - only the Chinese, the Japanese and the Koreans. Natives of Siberia and of Russia's Far East, natives of Kazakhstan and natives of Mongolia do not have as high IQs as the former three ethnic groups. Which confirms the point made by Harpending & Cochran about civilization causing selective pressures which increase IQ (greater access to females and thus greater reproductive success for intellectually more capable males is well-attested for example in historical studies on Chinese civilization).

So what determined male reproductive success in Chinese and European civilizations during historical times was mostly intelligence.

While in Sub-Saharan tribal societies probably physical strength and size of male reproductive organ :) were more important.

Check also the data that I posted before:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-head-sizeraceiq-trainwreck/


Mongolians

Largest heads 1450 cc.+
Variable IQ

North Chinese* 105
Mongolians 99.5
Eskimos 91
Amerindians** 87
Siberians*** unknown

Median 95.5

*Manchuria
**Alaskans
***Aboriginals

Large heads 1400-1449 cc.
Variable IQ

NE Asians* 105
Russians** 96
Amerindians** 87

Median 96

*incl. S. Chinese
**Uralics
**Canada, Alaska, Mexico, Fuegians

Medium-large heads 1350-1399 cc.
Variable IQ

Nor./Cent. Europeans 98
Amerindians* 87
Oceanians** 84.5
Ugandans 73

Median 86

*Most Amerindians
**Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia

Smallest heads 1200-1249 cc.
Variable IQ

SE Asians 90
Far South Indians* 81

Median 85.5

*Incl. Sri Lanka, Seychelles, Comoros


As you can see small-brained South-East Asians have the same IQ as very large-brained Eskimos. Etc., etc.



The biggest heads of all are in Northern Chinese (Manchurians), Eskimos, Alaskan natives, Siberians and Mongolians. The Northern Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality) IQ is 105, the Mongolian IQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality) is 100, the Eskimo IQ is 91, the Alaska native IQ is 87 and the Siberian native IQ is not known.

Note that Amerindians in Canada, Alaska, Mexico (!) and Tierra Del Fuego have larger heads (1400-1449 cc.) than any Europeans, yet Europeans have higher IQ’s than any of these Amerindians, who have IQ’s of 87. In addition, Uralics and Northeast Asians also have very large heads. Northeast Asians have median IQ’s of 105 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality), Uralics have IQ’s of 96 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality) and Amerindians have IQ’s of 87.

Amerindians in most of the US and in most of Latin America, Egyptians, Ugandans and Oceanians (Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians) have the same sized heads (1350-1399 cc.) as Northern and Central Europeans.

Northern and Central Europeans have median IQ’s of 98 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality), Amerindians are at 87, Oceanians have median IQ’s of 84.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality), and Ugandans have IQ’s of 73 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality).

Angela
27-03-15, 20:38
Are you saying size sometimes does matter? Just in some organs, not all of them? :)

Seriously, you don't have to convince me, Tomenable...I think the research in this whole field is very problematic. I don't think anyone has really figured it out. That's mostly what my posts were intended to show.

giuseppe rossi
27-03-15, 21:23
Richard Lynn did a lot of recalculations and conversions of raw data to lower the average mean IQ of Italy.

I will post some stuff in the next days.

In the meantime this is a good list of real measured mean IQs.

http://www.getiq.net/charts.jsp

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ls03mMxbFU8/T2nGt_TzG5I/AAAAAAAAACM/AkWc3ek-8-Q/s200/Untitled2.png

Maleth
27-03-15, 22:11
I know a lot of very intelligent people who just can't cope with this extravert society we have;
they overanalyze what people might think about them and therefore block themselves in doing what they can.
I think that's a shame, because introvert people (often, but certainly not always connected with high intelligence)
are also important for everyone.

This is very true Sennevini. A number of people that could be considered low IQ with whatever methods are used to determine this so called intelligence quota are extremely talented in some type of skill and also very humble people and of course very intelligent in their own ways with a huge contribution towards society in general. Of course many can be be introverts.

giuseppe rossi
28-03-15, 11:56
Basso et al. in their 1987 study gave for Italians 76 (sample size 138) - I wonder if there is a typo here [96 / 86 instead of 76?].

Pace & Sprini in their 1998 study gave a mean national IQ for Italians as 90 (sample size 5370).

Belacchi et al. in their 2008 study gave a mean national IQ for Italians as 95 (sample size 1378).

=============================



1. Belacchi et al. report that the mean IQ of children in the North have a mean British IQ of 103.6, and mean IQ of children in the south have a mean British IQ of 99.8, giving a 3.7 IQ point advantage for children in the north. These IQs are derived from the British 1982 standardization. Lynn recalculated the results and report that the mean IQ is 95.

Source: Belacchi, C., Scalisi, T. G., Cannoni, E., & Cornoldi, C. (2008). CPM-ColouredProgressive Matrices Stanardizzazioni Italiana. Firenze: Giunti O.S.
Organizzaazioni Speciali.

2. Pace and Sprini (1998). This sample gives results of a standardization of the Cattell Culture Fair test (CCF Scale 2 A) in Sicily on a sample of 5370 18 year old school students. The mean score was 31. This is equivalent to an IQ of 103 on the American and British norms given in Cattell (1959, p. 25). Lynn recalculated the results and report that the mean IQ is 90.

Source: Pace, F., & Sprini, G. (1998). A proposito della “fairness” del Culture Fair di
Cattell. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 227, 77−85.

3. Prunetti, Fenu, Freschi, and Rota (1996). This sample scored at the 54th percentile of the British 1982 standardization sample=101.5 IQ. Lynn recalculated the results and report that the mean IQ is 99.

Source: Prunetti, C. (1985). Dati normativi del test P.M. 47 Coloured su un campione
di bambini italiani. Bolletino di Psicologia Applicata, 176, 27−35.

4. Lynn blatantly ignored the last surveys on mean Italian IQ.

"Despite the minor differences between the studies, our results demonstrate quite clearly that raw scores [on Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices] of children from Sicily are not lower than those [of children from the North and Central-South] reported by Cornoldi et al. (2010). On the contrary, they are sometimes higher. This result could be related to the fact that the children in our group were tested in group sessions, while children in Italian standardization scores (Belacchi et al., 2008) were tested both in group and individual administration. Belacchi et al. (2008), indeed, found mean raw scores significantly higher in group sessions administration than in individual administration. Moreover, the children in our group were selected for other research purposes, and did not include children with socio-cultural disadvantage or other type of behavioral or cognitive problems. The more extensive sample reported by Cornoldi et al. (2010), on the contrary, was collected with the aim of building norms, and it likely includes a more diverse sample of children coming from different urban and suburban areas, and showing different socio-cultural levels."

"Naglieri et al. (submitted for publication) studied the differences between the psychometric qualities of the CAS [Cognitive Assessment System] for the Italian and US standardization samples. Although the goal of that study was not to make regional comparisons, they did report that there were no significant differences (F(1, 806)=2.19, p=.11) between the average CAS-Italian Full Scale standard scores (set at a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15) for students from the northern (M=100.5; SD=13.2), central (M=101.2; SD=11.9), and southern (M=103.1; SD=11.6) regions of Italy. The mean standard scores for the students in the north were only slightly lower than the mean for those in the south (effect size=.21). These results suggest that a test of intelligence that measures basic neuropsychological processes, and does not include academically laden verbal and quantitative tests, yields small differences between the regional groups. These findings also amplify the importance of measuring intelligence directly when comparing groups and argue against using reading, math and science test scores as "proxies for intelligence" (Lynn, 2010a)."

Source: D'Amico et al. "Differences in achievement not in intelligence in the north and south of Italy: Comments on Lynn (2010a, 2010b)" (http://www.scienzeformazione.unipa.it/doc/225/D_Amico__Cardaci__Di_Nuovo___Naglieri_2012.pdf). Learning and Individual Differences, 2012.

giuseppe rossi
28-03-15, 11:59
1.6. Intelligence scores and Flynn effect
Lynn (2010b) uses data from several studies on Raven's test (Pruneti, 1985; Pruneti, Fenu, Freschi, & Rota, 1996; Tesi & Young, 1962) and Cattell Culture Fair test (Buj, 1981; Pace & Sprini, 1998). None of the studies used the same age groups and none were aimed at comparing IQs across regions of Italy.

Moreover, Lynn (2010b) did not consider the calculation of IQs made by the authors, but rather he recalculated the IQ scores in light of the well known and controversial (Colom, Lluis-Font & Andrés-Pueyo, 2005) Flynn effect (2007), described as a general increase of intelligence scores over the world in the last 50 years. So, for instance, an IQ of 99 collected in 1960, was increased by 4 points considering the Flynn effect = 4 of the Italian IQ in the years 1960-79.

Such procedure is questionable, as also Hagan, Drogin, and Guilmette (2008) pointed out. Indeed, different studies demonstrated that the Flynn effect is concentrated in the lower half of the normal distribution or in undeveloped countries (Colom et al., 2005), whereas a possible stagnation of IQ scores in developed ones is currently under debate (Teasdale & Owen, 2005; 2008).

Source: D'Amico et al. "Differences in achievement not in intelligence in the north and south of Italy: Comments on Lynn (2010a, 2010b)" (http://www.scienzeformazione.unipa.it/doc/225/D_Amico__Cardaci__Di_Nuovo___Naglieri_2012.pdf). Learning and Individual Differences, 2012.

Garrick
30-03-15, 02:48
Unfortunately, these rankings can only lead us to wrong conclusions. Because, they are not based on strictly scientific grounds. There are different sources, there is no consistent methodology, tests are different, mutually incomparable, samples are unsuitable, periods differ in decades, tests somewhere replace estimates etc. Results can be valid only if in one period within a reasonable time, according to same methodology, scientifically selected samples, with tests same for the all, with careful design that impact of education is zero, research conducts in all countries, and in countries with larger population, by regions. In fact, the size of regions should be similar, but it is not possible to achieve ideally and differences in size of the region may be acceptable.

Also, IQ is not enough. There are different types of intelligence. Gardner gives nine types of intelligence:
http://www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide/learning/howard_gardner_theory_multiple_intelligences.pdf

...
In terms of the skull, its size may not be a reliable indicator of intelligence. The more important are brain's fissures and convolutions.

giuseppe rossi
30-03-15, 17:24
An incomplete list of manipulations/recalculations of the mean IQ of Italy by Richard Lynn can be found in "IQ differences between the north and south of Italy: A reply to Beraldo and Cornoldi, Belacchi, Giofre, Martini, and Tressoldi".

Tomenable
31-03-15, 12:25
One ranking:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/who-are-the-smartest-white-europeans/

Another one:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

Regio X
17-02-20, 02:04
deleted by poster

Joey37
18-02-20, 19:00
Northern Monkeys for the win! I have Northern English ancestry and my IQ is 125; my maternal grandfather was 100% English, with his paternal grandmother Susie Turner Whitman's family being recent emigrants from Ashton in Makerfield, Lancashire, and with an IQ of 136.