http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog...me_jewish_ones/
Large verbal/performance IQ differences have been found within Jewish populations. Levinson (1958) studied a representative sample of yeshiva students and found an average Verbal IQ of 125.6, an average Performance IQ of 105.3, and an average Full Scale IQ of 117.86, although he suggests that there may have been a ceiling effect for some students on the verbal portion. Whereas in the general population there was a correlation of 0.77 between Verbal and Performance IQs, among Jewish children it was only 0.31. Finally, Levinson (1960b) found that a sample of Jewish boys (age 10-13) with an average Verbal IQ of 117 had a Performance IQ of 98, while Irish and Italian samples matched for Full Scale IQ had Verbal/Performance differences of only approximately 5 points (approximately 110-105). Levinson (1959) provides evidence that the Verbal/Performance difference for Jewish children increases from pre-school to young adulthood. When children were matched on the basis of full-scale Wechsler IQ, pre-school children showed a small (3-point) difference between Performance and Verbal IQ, while elementary school-age and college student subjects showed a difference of approximately 20 points.
âTaken together, the data suggest a mean IQ in the 117 range for Ashkenazi Jewish children, with a Verbal IQ in the range of 125 and a Performance IQ in the average range. These results, if correct, would indicate a difference of almost two standard deviations from the Caucasian mean in Verbal IQ exactly the type of intellectual ability that has been the focus of Jewish education and eugenic practices. While precise numerical estimates remain somewhat doubtful, there can be no doubt about the general superiority of the Ashkenazi Jewish children on measures of verbal intelligence (see also Patai & Patai 1989, 149).
05-11-2008, 07:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2008, 07:50 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 10 2008, 06:57 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 10 2008, 06:57 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Pandyan+May 10 2008, 12:17 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pandyan @ May 10 2008, 12:17 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->G. Sub, would you happen to have source for SAT scores of NRI kids? And also a source that shows correlation between GRE score and IQ? What would you say average Indian IQ is (or could be)? Disregarding factors like nutrition and living condition. Also I have noticed different religious groups, even of same ethnicity have highly different IQs, so religion also plays a role.
[right][snapback]81434[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.arthurhu.com/index/relig.htm
2001 UPDATE: SATs and Religion
The affiliations that rank as the top 10 based on average SAT scores
of college bound seniors last year, all races.
1. 1209 Unitarian Universalist Association
2. 1161 Judaism [The Jews]
3. 1153 Quaker
4. 1110 Hinduism [Indo Americans][right][snapback]81445[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->All the less evangelising christian variations (UUA; and the Quakers who were the sole christian group that was pro-abolition), and of course the non-evangelising Judaism and Hindu Dharma. Also UUA and Quakers encouraged more independent thought and critical thinking than other christian sects.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2T45r5G3kA
Check out the IQ test at the beginning of the 2nd part, his scores fluctuate wildly depending on the task.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thanks I will.
I read that Einstein was told by his maths teacher in Germany that he'd never do well in the subject. Then again, he famously said that when his theory of relativity (special or general, I don't remember) was taken over by the mathematicians, <i>he</i> couldn't understand it anymore either.
Some say Einstein was a savant. Others say he was dyslexic. Maybe both are true. In any case, one famous dyslexic person was a cryptologist who could IIRC both encrypt things such that computers could not (yet) decrypt them, and decrypt things that computers could not (yet) decrypt or would take very long to.
05-11-2008, 08:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2008, 08:48 PM by G.Subramaniam.)
Unitarians and Quakers represent the far right of the IQ bell curve
for the white people
Of the various sects of xtianity, unitarianism is the least stupid
The founding fathers of the US were predominantly unitarian
Unitarian IQ based on SAT is 123
The chinese need to steal intellectual property
---
Easily understood by shortage of over 125 iQ
http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2006/1...-bottom-of.html
Is India starting to scrape the bottom of its high-IQ barrel?
Steve Sailer:
For a number of years, I've been largely alone in raising the question of just how deep are the supplies of high IQ people in India. There are a billion people in India, but how many of them are smart enough to become, say, American-quality systems analysts? Are they evenly distributed throughout the vast population or are they concentrated in certain castes and regions that have already been well-exploited?
India is way too complicated for me to provide an answer to these questions, but there is a certain amount of evidence that suggests that India has a much more divergent IQ distribution than China, so that the widespread American assumption of an unlimited supply of high IQ workers in India may be faulty.
Now the NY Times reports that smart workers are in short supply in India.
---
This fool does not realise that Dwijas are 15% of 1.1 billion = 160 million
and brahmins are 5.5% = 60 million
Chinese eugenics programs
Lee Kuan Yew for decades has been trying eugenics to raise the iq of the singapore chinese
On the web, I have seen several posters that the chinese govt is planning to do the same thing
--
Eugenics will work only with a widely varying initial population, with a homogenous population, it is very difficult
05-12-2008, 05:06 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2008, 05:11 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
G.Sub I never heard of eugenics in Singapore, any sources?
I know he is autocratic and all but I never heard of eugenics programs by him.
It's believable in the case of China though because its a Communist (at least in name) dictatorship.
05-12-2008, 05:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2008, 06:02 AM by G.Subramaniam.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+May 12 2008, 05:06 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ May 12 2008, 05:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->G.Sub I never heard of eugenics in Singapore, any sources?
I know he is autocratic and all but I never heard of eugenics programs by him.
It's believable in the case of China though because its a Communist (at least in name) dictatorship.
[right][snapback]81556[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lee Kuan Yew is trying to give prize money for college graduate women who breed more
He is also arranging get-togethers for college men and college women to breed a higher IQ race
What Lee Kuan Yew is doing in a more civilised way, the commies will do it in a more uncivilised way, like Himmler trying to breed a super race using the lebensborn program
low class German women were impregnating by nordic SS men and the children brought up in good german homes
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog...ce_panic_i.html
Tom Simth
August 8, 2006 03:11 AM
Come on guys! We may naively wish that the dmocratic India can outdo China economically. The cold fact is that India will never catch China because China's national average IQ is more than a SD higher than Indian's national average IQ. China's national average IQ is 105 whilst India's national average IQ is at 81. Check @google for "IQ and Wealth of Nation" for stats on that. It is just a pipe dream for us to wish India can counter balance the rise of China.
------
David Scott Lewis
January 13, 2007 09:37 AM
Realistically, India can't compete against China in high value-added services, e.g., R&D and engineering services outsourcing.
In ITO, the gap between India and China is widening. I speak with first-hand experience: I was the VP, Bizdev for two of the largest U.S.-focused, China-based ITO firms. In BPO, for English-speaking countries and customers, China doesn't have a prayer: English speakers can, almost easily, get much better jobs than working in a call center or processing checks.
But in R&D and engineering services outsourcing -- the highest level of the outsourcing value chain -- China will kick India's butt. There's no comparison. All the best Indians are in the States. Good for the States!! What's left behind in India simply can't compare to what China has.
Frankly, I'm not too impressed by sea turtles, i.e., Chinese nationals that have returned back to China. Most have held low-level positions in the States. Check their CVs; trust me, you won't be impressed. Mid-level management at best (and this is rare). This is one reason the top management ranks of so many China-based firms is held by Taiwanese and Hong Kongnese: The mainland doesn't have experienced talent.
But this doesn't necessarily matter for basic research and in areas like experimental activities. Besides, it's questionable how close to actual product development U.S. firms may be comfortable in outsourcing -- to either China OR India.
---
From China, with love
August 22, 2007 11:29 PM
mbabu73, I agree with you that it's a waste of time to argue who's superior. Both india and china are poor poor developing countries.
But I have to disagree with this India is behind China by 15 years statement. It's quite complicated. China is ahead not only because she opens up her economy 15 years earlier. There are a lot of other reasons. 15 years ago, China's literacy rate is a lot higher than 60% which is the current literacy rate in India.
05-12-2008, 06:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2008, 06:57 AM by G.Subramaniam.)
above url
---
Bin
November 15, 2007 12:59 PM
Of course not. India's IQ is not 81. In fact, India's culture is the most mind-oriented. It is amazing to see how such little game from the west can cause so much disturbance in eastern people. It is more amazing how people, including westerners, buy this naive idea of IQ... I never thought we are smarter than Indians. More Chinese creativity is smothered by the education system.
---
Jian
December 7, 2007 02:51 PM
Indian friends, why do you buy this IQ stuff? If Indians have low IQ, how Indian civilization was created? If IQ decides the weathy of a nation, then why a nation can be wealthy and poor in different times? China was very wealthy 200 years ago, very poor 100 years ago, getting wealthy again now. Only short visioned and superficial people would come up these IQ theories. I googled the IQ issue many times, and found that it all came from several specific individuals, namely a couple western professors. The IQ thing has spred in form of a rumor much more than in form of knowlegde. There might be some scientific innocence in some evolved in those studies, but I did get the immpression that many are true racists behind the mask of science. Their true intent is to belittle the blacks. They usually showed that they were not racist by saying that east Asians have higher IQs, then forgot the east Asians, and focused on the difference between the blacks and the whites. For the sake of analysis, let's assume that blacks do have low IQs, yet this knowledge does not lead to any higher truth. It is the end. Then why even bring it up if not to humiliate? Why tell a girl she is ugly?
----
Johnson
May 3, 2008 11:57 AM
You cannot point to Indian technical accomplishments and then assume that it can be capable of a per capita GDP of China or the West.
Thousands of years ago, India still had a high population. All India needed was a few thousand people with IQ above 130 and they could innovate. However, the masses with low IQ are STILL THERE. And as of yet, there has been no general education progress of the masses at the level which would disprove the notion of a low average IQ.
Additionally, there have been severe dysgenic tendencies in the past 3 generations, whereby poor people had more kids in shorter generations than rich people.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog...a_vs_china.html
---
Murphy
October 5, 2006 09:47 PM
I have been working last 15 years with both Chinese and Indian software people. The chinese has no comparision with Indian geeks. The chinese are good on repititive and maintenance work and the Indians are good in innovative things. I feel Mr Dong has faked
----
Chinese
October 9, 2006 09:42 AM
Oh boy... Another India vs China article. If you've ever noticed, there is hardly any Chinese who would join this silly debate. Only Americans and Indians. As a Chinese, I can tell you that people in China are very curious about India, but don't view it as a race, especially when the two countries are developing in such different ways. If we want to compare them in software outsourcing, I can say that Indians will always have the edge because Chinese simply don't speak English well enough to communicate with Americans. But in terms of programming skills, I don't see any group or race of people having more talent than others. Of course everybody will claim to be the best, it's natural.
----
Greg
October 9, 2006 10:53 AM
As someone who has worked with both Indian and Chinese porgrammers, I don't think it's the capabilities of individual programmers that make the biggest differences; it's more about project management where Indian companies have edges. But the Chinese are catching up. Interested in the latest in Chinese outsourcing industry? Check out the website http://www.chinaoutsourcingforum.org/
-----
chubby rain
October 9, 2006 04:56 PM
Here we go again! ascribing programming talent on racial lines! this is utter nonsense. To address the original contention of elegant code vs non elegant code, I can tell you, as an experienced software architect of 25 years, that I have witness many a project that has failed due to the so called search for elegance. Elegance has a place but the ability to produce working code and deliver a project is much more relevant. Perhaps that is why the Indians are so succesful at the moment. They have found an IT model that is in demand currently
---
Sergei
October 10, 2006 06:14 PM
You could know the personality of the bloggers. Chinese always keep low profile but they did real work, Indians showed extarordinary effort to prove they are the better one. I am a consultant, worked with many chinese as well as indians. Chinese tend to not speaking too much even though they did good design/coding work, while Indians will confidently present their wrong and shallow ideas.
----
Ed
October 11, 2006 06:50 PM
First I should say that both Chinese and Indians worked very hard, they are equally good. I won't comment on whose design & coding skills better but I will say that China will take over India as a leading software giant. I understand that Indians will be angry about this prediction since software outsourcing is the only shining point India is better than China for now. But don't panic Indian friends, that won't happen within 5 years but will within 10 years I am confident. Let me present my 2cents:
1. China has vast resource on software development, skills & management wise.
2. Software outsourcing is not new to China but a prosper business already,$5 billion not big as India, not known much in the west, the clients are Japanese, Koren & Taiwan
3. China itself is a big customer of software, while India software only work for western countries, it won't last long when China take a big pie on outsourcing.
4. China government support
---
Rajeev
October 16, 2006 10:13 AM
My two bit worth of coment:
Having worked in thei industry for donkey years, i have seen both extremes.....extremely good coding standards, and real pathetic ones......
The questio is not whether it comes off an Indian brain or from that of a Chinese. The question lies in the ethics and quality atandards of the copany these lines of code have been written for. If the quality systems are weak, both are capable of dishing out trash, and vice versa. What I have noticed is, that a majority of Indian coders suffer from an elevated sense of competition, which, while being a good motivator for excellence, also leads to short-cuts, sub-optimal coding, and in many cases it reflects in the shabby GUIs and other interfaces that they come up with. I have heard many developers citing the fact that a particular application works, as justification for teh UI to be rubbish.
The argument is not a Indians vs Chinese game....teh stakes are much higher for India than they are for China. The Chinese can always fall back on their low-cost manufacturing skills, if software does not get them similar returns.
Perhpas their regimented growing up helps the Chinese to write their code in elegant well-tabbed manner....so useful in impressing the uninitiated. I shudder to think what he North Koreans would bring to the table, given their capability in putting up a hundred thousand dancers in a meticulously well-choreographed ensembles.
----
tom sm
October 19, 2006 02:57 AM
These days, not a single say passes by without coming across some heated online debates on âIndia vs. Chinaâ somewhere. However, it is odd to me the online comments are more one-sided bashing from Indians than debates from both sides. I had a few chats with my Chinese friends on this. Their reaction may be surprising to you. In their mindsets, the comparison of India to China is as absurd and funny as comparison of Cuba to US and they do not even consider it worthwhile at all arguing with low-IQ Indians. It seems against common wisdom that authoritarian communist China outshine India economically, given Indianâs market economy, capitalist system and all those IITs modeled after American MIT and Harvard etc. Why? Their answer is a two-letter word âIQâ. It is not the IQs of the elite few Indians who migrate to US, but the national average IQ of population who make up the assembly workers, office clerks, carpenters and plumbers etc. These parts of population contribute most of a nationâs GDP. They argue that Indiaâs average IQ of 81 is at incomparable disadvantages with Chinaâs national average IQ of 100 (for ref, UKâs IQ is at 100 and US at 98). That is why few Chinese bother to debate âIndia vs. Chinaâ. These comments may not be politically correct and may not explain who is better at coding. But it does explains why capitalist money flows to communist China, not free India.
---
Sam
October 20, 2006 01:30 AM
Tom, with due respect to what you have just remarked....I think you seem to be swayed by the world famous Chinese propaganda (I'm sure you know what I mean). They say the statistics released by the Chinese Government are inflated to such an extent which would put even the infamous North Korean propaganda machine to shame.
To be completely unbiased, I must say that I have worked with both Indians and Chinese. The Chinese are extremely hard working...no doubt about that. But here's what I have to say..the Chinese work hard, but the Indians work smart. I have typically seen that the productivity of Indians is far higher than the productivity of the Chinese. If this is an indication of IQ, then I have to say that the Indians do possess superior IQ over the Chinese. Also, the Chinese are not able to communicate well. They also do not assimilate as well with Westerners as the Indians do (the Indians have an advantage here due to the British colonial influence which has given them the English language and the cultural proximity to the West).
---
above url
---
Kinsan
October 25, 2006 09:12 PM
Well, I have been working in a big software company for over 10 years. About half of the coders are from India. By that, I think I earned enough credit to throw some comments on Indian coders. By statistics, I can rate 1 out of 5 Indian coders as good. For rest of them, they are either mediocre to lousy.
The biggest obstable for the Indians to be good programmers is not about knowledge or experience, it is about their cultural inclinatioin such as habits----far from being meticulous and detailed. I'd bet, if race factor is considered, Japanese would be the best programmer by far in the whole world.
----
David Scott Lewis
November 7, 2006 09:53 AM
I'm sorry I didn't see this thread earlier. I have a somewhat unique background in that I've been VP, Business Development for the two largest U.S.-focused China-based ITO firms, i.e., Worksoft and Beyondsoft. I've also lived in China for nearly three years during which I met with over 100 ITO firms in over 20 different cities. And as additional background, prior to moving to China I was VP, E-Business Strategies at the META Group; I was META's analyst covering ITO.
So, let me add a bit of perspective that won't be too easy to find. First, comparing programmers in this fashion is silly. What does it really prove? The only thing I get out of Dong's dribble is more Chinese neo-Fascism/ultra-Nationalism (and I experience this everyday). Second, if Objectiva's programmers are doing such a great job, how come they're growing at a much slower rate than many other firms (such as the ones I've worked at)? Bad marketing, I guess. ;-) Third, India knows apps, China doesn't. This is the most important difference. Indian firms can service end users on a global basis; this is EXTREMELY difficult for China-based firms.
---
Free-T1bet
November 27, 2006 02:48 PM
I have been to India, and have made many great friends there. India is a great country, with a bright future. The greatest worry I have for India and it's peaceful, federalist, secular state, is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on it's Northern border, and the Indian Muslim minority. There is a lot of jealousy there about India/Hindu success. Musharaf is holding down a society with a lot of internal disfunction that could burst into a sectarian agressor.
There is only one difference between India and China that matters. Intellectual Freedom.
An Indian can walk into a bookshop in any Indian city and buy whatever book he wants. The Indian can look at any website on the web. The Indian can phone whoever he wants in another country. the Indian can attend any course whether technical or non-technical to further his ability. The Indian can expand his mind and his horizon. And this is very much part of the Hindu culture.
The Chinese programmer will work very hard and likewise is very talented. He is restrained by the needs of the Party. He is only allowed see a portion of the world that agrees with what the party says. He is not allowed intellectual freedom to develop like the Indians.
If the Indian programmers are better, then the winners will be the Chinese people. Because they will be able to say, if we want to move forward we must follow India. The Chinese people will learn about the necessity for intellectual freedom. Not having intellectual freedom makes China more susceptible to Western vices. But free thinking India seems much better equiped for the challenges of modern society-equiped from within. Therefore for China's own sake, China needs intellectual freedom.
-----
Peter Wang
March 5, 2007 02:36 PM
Being a software programmer is such a far away memory for me. As a Taiwanese/Chinese, I went thru US graduate schools w/ some really brilliant Indian classmates, 1980s. Those days most of us are humble, even the Chinese and Indians almost made the enitire engineering class.
----
above url
---
Andrew Tan
June 4, 2007 05:12 AM
Why China is really big threat to India in future ? I tell you shortly the causes are:
1. China is mother of "Overseas Chinese Network" i.e : Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Chn-American,Chn-Australian. They are same ethnic
2. China do Eugenics to increase talent people
3. National IQ Country = 100 it's same to USA IQ
India = 82, San Francisco,CA is China Town is the technology road to Beijing and also CHn-Town in GB,Canada, Australia, Europe....
4. The 100 Top University in Asia 20 hold by China
India just 2 universities and in the ranking >40
Your country have far below good university compared to China it's may be indicate your Education far below too
5. GDP & 8.5 growth of money is not indicator of
advancement Today is "The Age Of Brain"
How many Super Brain Human You Have ? It's the power of country
6. I guess 2 super power US & Chn will be a good friend in future ,same smart + rich country.
7.In Asian Games or Olympic Chn place on the top
They can absorb & sell high technology too i.e : satelite, nuclear, rudal, outspace airplane, etc
8. I am sorry I am just a commen people , blind about politics & technology etc , I am just a dreamer
Byeee
---
Yong
June 5, 2007 01:16 AM
No need compare China to India. India is nothing really. 1)India people are too lazy. very very lazy. 2) India people have few sense of self-discipline. 3) Because they are all good at English, So top India people work for Unite states not India itself. So India use low level people to compare China top level people. Therefore, India will lose to nothing no problem.
---
pravben
November 27, 2007 04:56 AM
Hi,
I feel both Chinese and Indians are intelligent people.
Regarding the 20000 line code,as a software professional and former code writer, I can tell you it is ridiculous generalization. There are bad code writers among both Indians and Chinese.
There are certain things each of them is good at.
Chinese are good are doing repetitive things.
Sometimes it is spine chilling, disturbing seeing their robotic behavior. Indians are good at innovation. Indians rebel when asked to do the same thing after 10 or the 15th time. Indians are talkative, question everything and that means India will remain a democracy for ever.
--
above url
----
Big_Al
December 10, 2007 12:34 PM
Jcage, sorry but your last point is factually incorrect.
The top 10 per cent of the richest Indians are 7.3 times richer than the poorest 10 per cent, but other nations fare worse.
The rich in countries like Brazil are 57.8 times richer than the poor, and the ratio for the United Kingdom is 13.8 times, the United States almost 15.9 times, China 18.4 times and Russia 12.7 times. More horrifying - the top ten per cent of Boliviaâs population is 168 times richer than its poorest 10 percent! The ratio for Namibia is 129 times and Lesotho 129 times.
Yet another reason for Indians to gloat?
---
http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11936
The other day I linked to an interesting article and matching review on the relative growth rates of India and China. The authors concluded that India's more transparent court system and their democratic apparatus plus the existence of significant home-grown Indian industries made them more likely to catch China than most people thought.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China and India have pursued radically different development strategies. India is not outperforming China overall, but it is doing better in certain key areas. That success may enable it to catch up with and perhaps even overtake China. Should that prove to be the case, it will not only demonstrate the importance of homegrown entrepreneurship to long-term economic development; it will also show the limits of the FDI-dependent approach China is pursuing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree on human biodiversity grounds.
However, I am not basing my decision primarily on the oft-quoted IQ data from Richard Lynn. Lynn cites studies in which India's mean IQ has been measured to be in the 80's, while China and Hong Kong have been variously measured to be all over the map, from 98 to 110 (!). As I've said before, the problem with IQ is that it is not measured in physical units (like height, for example), and so it is difficult to compare measurements made across space and time.
That said, I do put some credence in the Chinese measurements as being comparable to or greater than European mean scores, because of the following convergent pieces of evidence:
Chinese coracialists have built technological economies on a country-scale in Singapore and Taiwan. Related groups like the Koreans and Japanese have likewise been successful.
The Chinese diaspora in the US (and elsewhere) has been very economically and academically successful
The "Asians > Europeans" in mean IQ figure has been replicated in numerous countries
So for the Chinese, all the IQ signposts point in the same direction. As for India, I'm with Steve Sailer when he says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IQ structures of the two giga-countries, China and India, demand more intense study, in part because the future history of the world will hinge in no small part on their endowments of human capital. The demography of India is especially complex due to its caste system, which resembles Jim Crow on steroids and acid. By discouraging intermarriage, caste has subdivided the Indian people into an incredible number of micro-races. In India, according to the dean of population genetics, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, "The total number of endogamous communities today is around 43,000..." We know that some of those communities - such as the Zoroastrian Parsees of Bombay - are exceptionally intelligent.
But we can't say with any confidence what is the long run IQ potential of Indians overall. Their current IQ score (81) is low, especially compared to China (100), the other country with hundreds of millions of poor peasants. Yet, keep in mind just how narrow life in rural India was for so long. In 1952, on the fifth anniversary of independence, the Indian government commissioned a survey to find out if the average Indian villager had heard yet that the British had gone. The study was quietly cancelled when early results showed that the average villager had never heard that the British had ever arrived!
It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little more detail - the Indian mean IQ figures need further study for several reasons:
The only study since 1968 was of 569 youths in 1996
As Sailer said, the genetic stratification imposed by the caste system means that large samples of various castes need to be sampled and tested to get a true picture of India's (likely multimodal) IQ landscape.
The Indian diaspora has been spread all over the world, with varying results.
The diaspora is worth a post in its own right...suffice to say that the type of South Asian immigrant (unskilled, middle class, or professional) is quite important in predicting the prosperity of the resulting diasporic population. In other words, this outcome variability stands in sharp contrast to the relative homogeneity of the Chinese diaspora, where the descendants of the laborers shipped to Singapore built one of the most powerful economies in the world. The South Asian comparison would be the UAE, which is actually fairly wealthy even without the oil revenue. . But other countries like Mauritius and Fiji have shown only middling success for the Indian emigrants. [1]
The point is that unlike the Chinese, the IQ signposts for Indians do not all point in the same direction. However, I think it is more than likely that a simple caste-based model will explain Indian IQ stratification. After all that foreplay, then, my going assumption is that India's lower castes have substantially lower IQs than the upper castes, because they require racial quotas yet are still in abject poverty. Outside of Hinduism, we know that Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, and some Muslims have attained economic success either in India or overseas.
So, with all this in mind, I think China has many advantages over India , including:
1.racial and religious homogeneity
2.no neighbor which is as hostile as Pakistan
3.a higher GDP and a higher growth rate
4.no particularly dysgenic trends in birth rate (given the homogeneity of China)
Also, there is the question of precedent - racially similar Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese have built powerful country-scale economies. Indian diaspora accomplishments are significant, but they are mainly company-scale and individual-scale...and the individuals involved are almost entirely from the upper castes. In my opinion, India's lower castes (easily more than 50% of the population) are incapable of sustaining a technological economy, given that the features of Indian modernization: nuclear weapons, IITs, IT companies, drug companies, etc. are mainly due to Brahmins, particularly South Indian Brahmins.
A sometimes mentioned caveat is that the measured mean IQ of the Chinese might reflect the intelligence of the coastal Chinese rather than their illiterate rural cousins. However, I doubt that the IQ of the rural population is much lower than that of the coasts, because of two things:
1.Genetic homogeneity (China is 91% Han) (source)
2.According to Jason Soon, the super successful Chinese diaspora was mostly landless peasants (e.g. the Hakka in Singapore)
05-12-2008, 07:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2008, 08:00 AM by G.Subramaniam.)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-...chard-lynn.html
--
In a review ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.08.001) of Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary hypothesis in Intelligence, N.J. Mackintosh brings up more falsifications of data by Lynn:
Even if we wanted the data, can we rely on Lynn to have given an accurate account of them? I do not pretend to have read the originals of more than a handful of the papers and books cited by Lynn, but it just so happens that I wrote two of them myself, and Lynn has simply got their data wrong. Table 6.2 gives the results of 13 estimates of the IQ scores of south Asians in Britain and Australia. The median score is said to be 89, and similar for Indians and Pakistanis (as is to be expected since they are the same racial group). In fact, three British studies have given the same IQ tests to Indian and Pakistani children, and in all three, Indian children have outscored the Pakistanis by 4â6 IQ points. Mackintosh and Mascie-Taylor (1986) reported IQ scores of 97 and 93 for 10-year-old children of Indian and Pakistani origin respectively, but Lynn incorrectly attributes both scores to Pakistanis, one said to be for children resident in Britain more than 4 years, the other for more recent immigrants. West, Mascie-Taylor, and Mackintosh (1992) reported IQ scores of 91 and 85 for Indian and Pakistani children, but in Lynn's table these have mysteriously turned into scores of 87 and 88. The errors may not be particularly important, and I do not know how typical they are. But they do not increase my confidence in Lynn's scholarship
05-12-2008, 08:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2008, 08:02 AM by G.Subramaniam.)
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003111.html
remember a report in the New York times a few months back commenting on Frances "dynamic" community of about 500,000 Chinese.
As to IQ differences between Arabs and European Caucasoids, much of it must be environmental (e.g. due to Islam), since Indians, non-European Caucasoids, in the UK converge with indigenous Britons after about 4 years. Since the cohort cited by Jensen had the mean IQ of India (like 15 points below Britain) upon arriving in the country, it could not have been due to selective migration. Also, the Maronite Lebanese in France (and elsewhere) outperform European Caucasoids. The Armenians (of which France also has many) are a small self-selected group like the Ashkanazi Jews or Parsees, so it's hard to compare them.
Interestingly, Bangladeshi and Pakastani immigrants to the UK due not converge with the indigenous Britons.
Posted by: Nigel on November 12, 2005 08:21 PM
Nigel,
But why would the environment in India hold people back from their potential more than the environment in Africa?
I'm suspicious of simple interpretations of data about south Asian immigrant groups for a basic reason: caste. India has large numbers of in-breeding groups. So it is hard to generalize about its immigrants.
What percentage of the Indian immigrants in Britain are Brahmin versus Tamil versus assorted other groups?
Posted by: Randall Parker on November 13, 2005 07:01 PM
Randall, the Indians in the UK tend to be overwhelmingly North Indian middle-castes. There are relatively
few Brahmins and low-caste Indians that have immigrated. There's a larger proportion of Brahmins in the
U.S., but middle-castes also predominate here.
Posted by: Tim on November 13, 2005 10:16 PM
The above assumptions discount the foolish policies of the Indian gov't which have reduced India to the present state, there is a tendency to go gaga over IT whereas IT is a very tiny part of India's GDP, so you had Nehru who put the emphasis on higher education, which many credit as producing IT boom while ignoring the apalling literacy rates among the rest of the population.
The idea that IT will somehow magically transform the country is misplaced if u ask me, before you can become a service based economy you have to have got past the manufacturing phase and it is there that China has clearly outmatched India with its cheap labour force. everything you see these days has the made in China label on it while the Indian gov't fiddles its thumbs or puts all its eggs in the IT basket.
Also China is a dictatorship and does not have a 100 different parties each with their own agenda like India does, and some like the Communist party are positively hostile to Indian interests and work as the miners and sappers of Chinese imperialism.
When you consider all these factors it becomes clear why India cannot seem to catch up to China besides simplistic IQ analysis, and even some of those IQ differences themselves are a product of the myopic policies of Indian gov't which meant mass illiteracy and malnutrition are still a big problem.
Here's a customer review from Amazon on the book, "IQ and Wealth of Nations" by Richard Lynn.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The authors have done some incredibly random estimates of our national IQ. He got the IQ of Vietnam by taking the average of China and Thailand. This is simply absurd because the Vietnamese people originated from Southern China, and they are completely unrelated to the Thai people, racially and culturally. The authors could have assumed that the Vietnamese and the Chinese had the same average IQ (because they are genetically and culturally similar), that would have been better albeit still very random.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is really incredulous. This is what Lynn passes off as scholarly work. Determining IQ is important, but can't let the task fall to such people who have misguided ambitions. People in academia, like Lynn, who do such half-baked studies are guided financially by the Pioneer Fund, who have their own agenda to push.
http://www.arthurhu.com/index/relig.htm#Sat
1995 SAT score to determine IQ diff between NRI hindu and NRI muslim
Asian Hindus = 1029, IQ = 110
Asian Muslim = 923, IQ = 103
|
