05-18-2008, 01:19 PM
<!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> This has been the most prolific discussion on India Forum and I have been reading it with quite an interest.
And here is my opinion:
In Indian conditions,
1.The biggest divider between high IQ and so called low IQ is
Language.
That is to say, those who can do git-pit in English vs. other languages.
2. Another divider is between city born and bred vs. village born and bred.
Moreover, IQ is no more simply IQ e.g. it can be I(ntellectual)Q.
Then, there are things like 'abstractQ' vs. 'concreteQ' e.g. Japanese and some others are considered high in 'cq' while Indians are considered high in 'aq'.
Another 1 is 'emotionalq' in which again Indians are considered very high.
Somewhere in another thread, I have touched on 'politicalq'.
In nutshell, you name it and there is classification of 'iq'; therefore, I consider it very hazardous to say something like collective Indian 'iq'.
And here is my opinion:
In Indian conditions,
1.The biggest divider between high IQ and so called low IQ is
Language.
That is to say, those who can do git-pit in English vs. other languages.
2. Another divider is between city born and bred vs. village born and bred.
Moreover, IQ is no more simply IQ e.g. it can be I(ntellectual)Q.
Then, there are things like 'abstractQ' vs. 'concreteQ' e.g. Japanese and some others are considered high in 'cq' while Indians are considered high in 'aq'.
Another 1 is 'emotionalq' in which again Indians are considered very high.
Somewhere in another thread, I have touched on 'politicalq'.
In nutshell, you name it and there is classification of 'iq'; therefore, I consider it very hazardous to say something like collective Indian 'iq'.