Race and IQ

[Antigone]

Cultural differences between each country shows variance of IQ scores but the larger racial groups show general IQ score consistency.

Nah, the map is Eurocentric in the extreme, Riccardo is correct in his generalisation comment.

How can Argentinians have higher IQs than their South American neighbours?

India and Egypt is on a par with Madagascar and New Guinea?

The Irish have lower IQs than the English and Scottish?

Canada shows a darker colour than the US, when they are on a par genetically?

Italy has a higher IQ than anyone else in Europe?

Sorry but I don't agree with the map, the only thing that it shows is possibly a variance in educational standards, certainly not a variance in intelligence.

 

[Heathen]

How can Argentinians have higher IQs than their South American neighbours?

Argentinians are predominantly white European compared to their neighbours. I am not saying that this is the reason but it could be considering that Europeans score relatively higher in comparison.

 

[Reinaert]

This is the origin of the map:

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

IQ and Global Inequality is a controversial 2006 book by psychologist Richard Lynn and political scientist Tatu Vanhanen.[1] IQ and Global Inequality is follow-up to their 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations[2], an expansion of the argument that international differences in current economic development are due in part to differences in average national intelligence as indicated by national IQ estimates, and a response to critics. The book was published by the controversial Washington Summit Publishers.

In other words... Utter crap!

IQ tests are controversial themselves.

Please define IQ!!!

 

[Angela]

I think that all of the twin studies that have been conducted by far more reputable scientists than Richard Lynn show that there is definitely some genetic component to IQ. I just don't know that anyone has quantified exactly how much is genetic, and how much is environmental.

Add to that that these tests don't measure things like creativity, determination, imagination, artistic ability, manual dexterity, emotional and social intelligence etc. etc., and it's clear that these tests don't measure all the qualities that would determine a person's ability to contribute to a society.

They certainly are good at predicting certain things of course, such as performance at university level, although people could say that just means the high scoring person had a better education at the outset.

On the other hand, this particular study by Lynn also contains performance testing by country scores where students take standardized tests. Interestingly, the Finns performed very well on those tests, (a credit to their universally acclaimed educational system) and yet performed less well on the intelligence tests.

From my experience, whatever scores the Italians receive can not be credited to their education system, which is by no means the best in Europe.

I've always believed that Lynn has an agenda, and so I've never bothered to actually look at his methodology, or in other words, whether he uses the standard written IQ tests commonly administered in the U.S. for example.

As a general proposition, the only way, in my opinion, to get even close to measuring someone's ability to learn, and that person's speed of learning, is to give the laborious, blocks and shapes, repeating digits kind of test that takes hours to administer, and must be done one on one. Even then I have a problem with the fact that the visual/math abilities are weighted higher than the verbal ones.

At the end of all that effort, as I said above, you still haven't measured other qualities that are as, if not more important, so why don't educators start implementing the tried and true methods that reach the most children in the quickest amount of time and take it from there?

 

[Riccardo]

It could be really discriminatory...

Angela, they are destroying our education system...Once it was one of the bests!

 

[MarTyro]

What is IQ? Go deep in to the Amazon Jungle and try to survive only with the tools of an indigenous people - you will fail; same in the Arctis. Most IQ-Tests are made by Western-educated people and have many questions that are easier to know with "normal school education".

 

[Knovas]

I agree that IQ tests are a bit controversial, although some of them perhaps show aproximate results. For example, Asimov participated in several IQ tests and he was quite critic with the exercises (even when he got high scores in all).

 

[ultralars]

Good IQ test measure intelligence optimally, EQ is just personality and doesn't count as far as intelligence goes.

 

[MarTyro]

Yes, there is. Look the world avarage IQ map:

I also think this could be a climate map Is there a study of the IQ of white people in the Ecquator-Zone?

 

[Antigone]

If a definition of what exactly is "intelligence" is yet to be agreed upon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence then it stands to reason that a test of that which is not yet defined is rather meaningless.

An IQ (originally designed to test the capabilities of the mentally disabled anyway, not how intellegent a person is) test is western designed and based on western style education. It is impossible to apply it to the entire world and expect accurate and unbiased results.

 

[LeBrok]

Hi MarTyro, with your post you have hit a very deep subject. I'm not even sure if you should compare two so different civilizations. One in XXI century cities the other in a jungle. The environments are so different that either people transplanted mid life to other civilization would fail miserably. I think in this case what's most important is a knowledge one can get through childhood to learn in certain environment, either it's a city or a jungle.
Generally speaking IQ test measures pattern recognition and associations between objects, either in pictures, written words or numbers, plus understanding a logic of a written language, and also understanding few concepts.
On other hand knowledge is just memorizing and remembering things, words, numbers, actions, plus one can also memorize concepts and their outcomes without understanding exactly how they work.

The greater your knowledge, the higher will be your score on IQ test with intelligence being constant. Without any knowledge you wouldn't even understand the questions, even if you were potentially super smart. The standardize IQ test best works in one education system in one country. At age, let's say, 16 everybody got same education, got chance to memorize same material, therefore in a big degree we can measure logical thinking, pattern recognition and understanding written language. It's not perfect and never will be, but statistically speaking it's a pretty good indicator in figuring out your socioeconomic status in life.
In some future we should have similar tests for social intelligence, economic/entrepreneurial intelligence, creative intelligence, and who knows what.

I'm not an expert so I can't say how valid are tests compared on international scale, and between continents. You have to take it with a big margin for mistakes, especially if from some countries we have only one or handful tests with small base, and who knows how they were constructed or translated from English.

 

[LeBrok]

The closest comparison between races regarding IQ tests are from USA.

To my understanding peoples with long tradition of intense agriculturalism are doing better on IQ tests than peoples with recent hunter-gatherer traditions.
And yes, climate played a huge role in everybody's evolutionary past. We are products of way of life of our ancestors. How they lived, what they ate, what they did during days or seasons. Natural selection did the rest, selecting the fittest for local environments.

 

[Bodin]

Yes but if this map reflects only aquiered knowledge tru educational sisem , and not real brain capacity , why China is darkest ( highest IQ ) and they have bad onesided ( comunistic) school sistem ? About theory about food and IQ , if nations that adopted agriculture previous then other would have higher IQ , then the nations in fertile crescent would have highest IQ , and that is clearly not the case.

 

[LeBrok]

Agriculture in Europe and in fertile lands of china and Japan were more intense by few factors and on much bigger area. Area of fertile crescent is surrounded by semi-deserts and deserts, and it is not that big. Most of original farmers there might have been killed few times over by sweeping armies.

About Education. Even though socialistic system was one sided in few subjects, the education there was public, accessible to all, and it contained more material to memorize than in Western coutries,...and six days a week. Intensity of education in socialist countries was highest in the world.

 

[Bodin]

Japan is not at all land suitable for agriculture . Sweeping armies were more present in Europe and China , then in fertile crescent , carriers of agriculture were E1b1b , J and G haplogroups and they are most numerous in fertile crescent
Aout education . Yes it contain more material to memorize , but it lack practical usage , and in that is the real knowledge . They do not develop critical oppinion which is esential for any real knowledge . Intensity of education is highest because it is widespread , not because it is quality . Man that memorize full truck of books , without understanding it , do not become any smarter , he become truck ( carry that books in his head )
Most of populations of Subsaharan Africa practising agriculture and catle briding as long as Europeans , except San ( Bushman ) nations and some nations in South Africa , that practised hunting and gathering up to today .
Thanks for answering.

 

[ultralars]

I think race matters more to potential than to instinctive IQ, like if you read books and educate yourself, as well as eating nutrients that help the brain like DHA, one with the right race will score higher. But if you eat unhealthy, don't educate yourself on any area, you probably will score a mediocre score even if your from a family inclining towards higher than average IQ.

If it werent like this, the fact that brothers and sisters can have big differences in IQ makes little sense.

I doubt Chinese people have the highest average IQ of all people in the world, Either the IQ tests from those areas stink or they tested to few people. It makes more sense that Germans and Brits have the potentially highest average IQ.


To Explain myself why i think that race only matters to the potential of your IQ:

Today Arab countries aren't exactly at their golden age, but it weren't always like that. If we look at the history of Arabian countries, we see impressive architecture, impressive military tactics, impressive technology and a highly developed culture for it's time. What influenced the Arabs to be so intelligent at that time must be their culture and maybe what they eat. It allowed them to reach their potential.

Same with Germanic countries, today we are great, but only 2000 years ago we where simple brutes, while the Romans and Greeks had reached a high level of culture and built impressive buildings.

 

[sparkey]

I doubt Chinese people have the highest average IQ of all people in the world, Either the IQ tests from those areas stink or they tested to few people. It makes more sense that Germans and Brits have the potentially highest average IQ.

Why? I've never seen a race-based IQ study where East Asians (or their diaspora) didn't top Europeans (or their diaspora), at least where we limit "East Asians" to the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.

 

[Bodin]

I think race matters more to potential than to instinctive IQ, like if you read books and educate yourself, as well as eating nutrients that help the brain like DHA, one with the right race will score higher. But if you eat unhealthy, don't educate yourself on any area, you probably will score a mediocre score even if your from a family inclining towards higher than average IQ.

If it werent like this, the fact that brothers and sisters can have big differences in IQ makes little sense.

I doubt Chinese people have the highest average IQ of all people in the world, Either the IQ tests from those areas stink or they tested to few people. It makes more sense that Germans and Brits have the potentially highest average IQ.


To Explain myself why i think that race only matters to the potential of your IQ:

Today Arab countries aren't exactly at their golden age, but it weren't always like that. If we look at the history of Arabian countries, we see impressive architecture, impressive military tactics, impressive technology and a highly developed culture for it's time. What influenced the Arabs to be so intelligent at that time must be their culture and maybe what they eat. It allowed them to reach their potential.

Same with Germanic countries, today we are great, but only 2000 years ago we where simple brutes, while the Romans and Greeks had reached a high level of culture and built impressive buildings.

I agre with first part , but about other you should remember Chineses are the ones that invented black powder , one of the first writing sistems , compas , silk , among many other useful things.Chines civilisation was on constantly high level for long time .
Yes Arab culture was amazing , maybe we should also look at enviromental conditions when we think about IQ , maybe hard conditions make IQ to grow ? Like northern cold climate , Arabian desert and Japanies islands? ( just a tought , not necesary truth).
Well Germans were not realy that much more brut than Romans , only Romans took Greek xenophobic view of the world , calling everybody else Barbaric ( "one that sound like sheap") and every stranger not god enough . Yes they bild great stone buildings , but just because they didnt have enough trees ( it was rear -expensive ) , we would never know about German buildings -they were wooden and roten away . Greatest stone buildings were made by Egyptians , but they never get out of Stone Age - never make Iron.
Romans never made golden coins before they conquered Gaul - Celts were richer then them and probably with higher culture , but they stil called them Barbarians .
Roman and Greek literature and science is preserved by Arabs ( we wouldnt know that Aristotelus , Sophocles, Herodothus, Xenophont , ... ever existed if Arabs havent preserved them- Christian church forbiden them ), and we do not know nothing about German culture , science , or literature because it has not preserved , except very late Edas .Maybe they didnt have scripture , maybe they did but it was lost , because they write it on material that easily decomposes . Who know , we could only guess.

 

[LeBrok]

Japan is not at all land suitable for agriculture . Sweeping armies were more present in Europe and China , then in fertile crescent , carriers of agriculture were E1b1b , J and G haplogroups and they are most numerous in fertile crescent

Bodin, keep in mind that fertile crescent was most fertile between 5000 to 1000 BC. Then the climate shifted and crescent became dryer than before producing fewer crops. The crescent become less agricultural with times. It was reversed in Europe where last 3000 years are most agricultural ever. Europe became extremely intense agriculturally in last 3000 years, and crescent become less. Basically it is the point in time when "glory" and history of Europe starts, and Babylon, Assyria, Egypt fade away.
If you can, find some statistics of agricultural production of Europe and Fertile Crescent, even from 100 or 200 years ago and you'll see what is intense agriculturalisem in Europe compared to crescent. Probably the population count will do the trick. There were always as many people in countries as they could feed. So you can compare number of cities or big cities in both areas.
Europe is roughly 10 times bigger than fertile crescent, therefore even in big disasters or wars, there are more pockets for farmers to survive and rebuild. There was no one ruler or army that conquered whole Europe ever, unlike Crescent which was under one ruler many times.
Europe is in very blessed position for agriculture. You can plan your crops year after year and expect similar weather conditions, and same results. There are rarely big droughts or locust killing your crops. Climate stability is the trick.
Now look at Africa. The only part of Africa with fairly stable climate is Zimbabwe, the former food basket of this continent. The rest can experience weather extremes that can last for decades, like droughts. Even in good years your good crops can be eaten away by locust or 10 000 strong flock of antelopes. You have desert in 1/3 of Africa, 1/3 a jungle and 1/3 not bad for crops, but everything alive wants to eat it too. That's why agriculture was always very sparse and in between in Africa. It is there but it is a far cry from intense European agriculture. There is a reason why Europe and East Asia are the most populated places on Earth. It is a food production. If not anti-conception, and population control, there would be twice as many, or more, Europeans and East Asians now.
There are always few phenomenons in the world, but this shows a general trend.
Greeks invented theater and actors, but who makes more money on it now? Who feeds millions from this invention at the moment? California. Can you say "intensity"?

Japan is not at all land suitable for agriculture .

Agriculturalisem gives people who embraced it a huge advantage in survival. There is no way people will missed or avoid this opportunity. If there are no agriculturalists in some regions of this planet, is just because the conditions are not suitable to lead this lifestyle. It is simple like this. If Japanese do agriculturalisem then it means that it works there, period. If Eskimos don't do it, we know they are not able. Heck, the Vikings tried it on Greenland, and we know the results. This is not a matter of free choice, this is a matter of surviving and natural selection, surviving of most adopted to the environment.

Aout education . Yes it contain more material to memorize , but it lack practical usage , and in that is the real knowledge . They do not develop critical oppinion which is esential for any real knowledge . Intensity of education is highest because it is widespread , not because it is quality . Man that memorize full truck of books , without understanding it , do not become any smarter , he become truck ( carry that books in his head )

I wasn't arguing about how useful the knowledge was in communist schools. Even the pure memorization of useless material trains the brain and improves memory. It makes easier to memorize useful material in future when time comes. Same as training your muscles.
Also IQ tests don't test real world knowledge or skills. Mainly IQ tests logic with numbers, words and associations. In this regard socialistic schools were pretty good preparing pupils for IQ test.

 

[edao]

"The Neolithic Revolution is the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and settlement. Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose independently in six separate locales worldwide ca. 10,000–7000 years" source

"Fifteenth Century Portugal, especially under Henry the Navigator probed along the West African coast." source

Lets look at those dates, so roughly agriculture 10,000 years ago, then 500 years ago Europeans start exploring Africa to find people living as hunter gatherers a way their ancestor left 9,500 years ago.

Are we expected to believe that societies that occupied themselves with hunting and acquiring food as the primary function are in no way different from a society that spent 9,500 years creating cities and developing ideas? That this opposite ways of surviving and thriving have not had major impact on who we are today.

No one can argue that Africa has struggled to come to terms with western ideas and culture. I think fear of being termed a racist stops people from viewing this subject objectively.


"This is a "Persistence Hunt" of a Male Kudu by tribesman of the San on the Kalahari Desert of Africa from one of BBC's specials.

Running on two feet over long distances is more efficient than four. Man's extra limbs can be used to carry water, the Kudu cannot."
watch video

Do you think a average European could chase the Kudu for 8 hours, I think not. The african hunter has changed his body over centuries to adapt to his approach to survival.
The physical approach vs the ideas approach.