• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Real Indian IQ
#21
<!--QuoteBegin-Pandyan+May 10 2008, 12:40 AM-->QUOTE(Pandyan @ May 10 2008, 12:40 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 9 2008, 07:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 9 2008, 07:33 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->the 2nd generation UK Indian IQ ( middle castes ) = 97<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

G. Sub, I believe Indian kids in UK outdo their white counterparts in all standardized tests, administered both publicly and privately. White IQ in UK is supposed to be at 100, therefore your estimation of 97 should be a little higher than 100. Only people who outdo Indians in UK are Chinese, but by very little. I would say UK presents us with best environment for estimating avg Indian IQ, since background of UK Indian immigrants is not extracted from upper caste alone, like it is in the US.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003749.html
[right][snapback]81435[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


In school performance Indian kids outperform White UK kids
However since no formal IQ test has been done, since 1997

IQ should track school performance and I can make a guess

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/education/294078.stm

Five GCSEs at grades A to C were achieved by 54% of Indian pupils and 61% of Chinese and other Asian pupils in 1998, compared to 47% of white pupils.

From Above, Indian kids in UK are performing midway between Whites, IQ = 100 and Chinese IQ = 108

A linear interpolation will give an IQ of 104 for a caste mix of jat sikhs and patels

This is 1998 data
  Reply
#22
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx

Convert GRE and SAT to IQ
  Reply
#23
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+May 9 2008, 07:37 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ May 9 2008, 07:37 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->G.Sub while these assumptions may be correct, they cannot compensate for hard data, there seem to be very few IQ tests conducted in India, and even the ones conducted have been confined to certain areas.


Also correct me if I am wrong, the 13 or so IQ tests which Steve Sailer uses in his article on Indians were conducted between 1940s and 1980s when India was much more poorer and illiterate, so I suspect that there may have been a slight increase in the current IQ with an improving diet and economy (thanks to abandoning socialism of Nehru).
[right][snapback]81425[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Even in Gujarat, there is severe malnutrition
These tests were done in places like Orissa and it may take several decades more for the improvement in diet and literacy to kick in
Sailers latest IQ shows 82 for India instead of 81
  Reply
#24
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+May 9 2008, 08:04 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ May 9 2008, 08:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->for India -

metro:other-urban:rural:tribal segmentation?
gender segmentation?
age-demographics has any role?
any idea on jains?
religious attitude break-up (religious-nonreligious) play a role?
what about areas that were not subjugated by muhammedan savagery?  e.g. North East, esp Assam? Nepal? Tibet?
[right][snapback]81426[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Nepal has an IQ of 78

Keep in mind
Nepal is much poorer and less literate than India
Also there are several tribes and castes. which castes were measured ?

Next Nepal suffers from iodine deficiency which reduces IQ

--

Assam, is racially similar to Thailand, but poorer

Thailand has 90 IQ, Assam is probably 84

---

Tibet is very interesting

The lama priests have to memorise a lot of stuff like brahmins and this would push their IQ to about 115
However the lower class tibetans are probably like nepalese , 78??

Tibet like nepal suffers from iodine deficiency which reduces IQ by about 10

In short, IQ tests are meaningless until a child has adequate nutrition from pregnancy to 5 and basic schooling
  Reply
#25
http://www.arthurhu.com/99/09/indiq.txt

--

Note the anguish of these people when they find that darker skinned hindus perform better

--

Indian children currently outperform white children in the GCSE
examinations in England and Wales, though I don't think much of this has
anything to do with IQ, let alone genes for IQ. You may remember that we
discussed the original Times report in March:
---

From: "John Derbyshire" <olimu@li.net>
To: "Gregory M. Cochran" <74771.3230@compuserve.com>,
"Arthur Hu" <arthurhu@halcyon.com>
Copies to: "[unknown]" <cai1@is.nyu.edu>, "[unknown]" <h-bd@egroups.com>
Date sent: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:44:02 -0400
Subject: [h-bd] Re: Asian query follow-up


I wonder how appropriate-- from the ethnometric point of view-- the words
"Hindu" and "Caucasian" are in this context. The greatest mathematician
India has yet produced was Srinivasa Ramanujan, who came from Kumbakonam
in southern India. Though certainly Hindu by religion, his native tongue
was Tamil, which is a Dravidian language, not at all related to the
Indo-European language family of which Hindi is a member. He was also, as
can be seen from his photographs (there is a good biography by Robert
Kanigel, "The Man Who Knew Infinity") very dark and not at all
"Caucasian"-looking like so many north Indians. In fact the
Indo-European-speaking inhabitants of India descend from invaders of the
2nd millenium B.C., who overwhelmed an older, darker, Dravidian-language
stock and appropriated their religion (it is plain from the most ancient
texts, for example, that the invaders were enthusiastic eaters of beef...
a habit that died out as they became Hindicized).


I have for some years been involved in the hiring of technical
specialists-- mostly computer programmers-- in New York City. The pool of
applicants for programming jobs here is about equal parts (a) Chinese (b)
Indian © Russian-Jewish and (d) all other. I have hired several
Indians, and it seems to me that there is a (positive) correlation between
how dark (i.e. "Dravidian") they are and how mathematically adept they
are. This is impressionistic, but, together with the eminence in his
field of S. Ramanujan, it suggests the following very loose & vague
hypothesis:


Whatever neurological structures are involved in abstract mathematical
skills are more likely to be found in a highly developed state among East
Asians, Ashkenazi Jews and Indians of Dravidian-speaking stock.

---

As an afterthought, it may not be
irrelevant that the ancient civilizations of India seem to have been
obsessed to an unusual degree-- I can't think of any comparisons, either
ancient or modern-- with very big numbers. Sanskrit has words for 10^31
(vyavaithanaprajnapti), 10^37 (samaptalambha), 10^47 (visandjnagati) and
10^53 (tallakchana). In a math competition to win the hand of a lady (!)
the Buddha-- according to one of the ancient biographies ("Lalitavistara")
computed the number of atoms in a yojana (= 3 miles). He got the answer
3,840,000,000,000. The ancient book "Surya Siddhanta" claims it was given
(by the Sun) to a fellow named Maya Asura in 2,163,102 BC. Archbishop
Ussher's computation of the age of the world (4004 BC) looks very
pedestrian by comparison. The ninth level of time cycles (though I am not
altogether sure I understand this bit) lasts for 10^421 years. Cf current
estimates of the age of the cosmos-- around 10^10 years.


I do not guarantee any of the above spellings. Any Sanskritists in the
group?


John Derbyshire
----

Steve Sailer here:


1. I'm reading "India: A Million Mutinies Now" by V.S. Naipaul. It's a
surprisingly dull book from such a celebrated author, but Naipaul refers
several times to the same phenomenon: the South Indian talent for science
and math, especially among Dravidian brahmins. "In the South, science had
grown over two or three generations out of the brahminical tradition of
abstract learning." This suggests that Ed Miller's on to something in his
view that the traditional intellectual duties of the brahmins, dealing
with the extraordinary degree of complexity and abstraction found in
Indian religion and philosophy (which I tended to unfairly underrate
because it always make my eyes glaze over), would have artificially
selected for brahmins with the brainpower to handle them. Indeed, Indian
immigrants to the U.S. are highly over-represented in the most brahminical
(i.e., abstract) of modern American jobs: e.g., statistical modeling,
information systems architecting, strategic consulting, etc.). Much of the
immigration of brahmins to America seems to be encouraged by Indian
affirmative action laws greatly restricting the opportunities of brahmins
in India.
---

From: "Ian Pitchford" <Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com>
To: <h-bd@egroups.com>
Date sent: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 00:16:32 +0100
Organization: http://www.human-nature.com/
Subject: [h-bd] Re: More on India


Steve Sailer wrote:


1. I'm reading "India: A Million Mutinies Now" by V.S. Naipaul. It's a
surprisingly dull book from such a celebrated author, but Naipaul refers
several times to the same phenomenon: the South Indian talent for science
and math, especially among Dravidian brahmins. "In the South, science had
grown over two or three generations out of the brahminical tradition of
abstract learning." ______ REPLY: Perhaps the real explanation for
Dravidian talents is a cultural tradition stretching back to Aryabhata
(476-499), the great Indian mathematician, still listed in most
encyclopaedias (including the latest edition of Encarta) as a native of
Patna, who was in fact from Kerala, where his school is still in vogue.
It's probably also more than slightly significant that:

---

  Reply
#26
Malnutrition rates
India - China
45%, 12%

Womens literacy
India - China
45%, 87%
  Reply
#27
China also doesn't have 200 million Muslims to bring down IQ. I'm also interested in seeing the original studies done in Bharat, if anyone has it please post. We have to know the nature and methods of these studies and where they were conducted in the country.
  Reply
#28
The ignorance of the above retards who fancy themselves to be experts can be noticed by a simple point, notice that someone mentioned how Indian kids outperformed White kids in GCSE scores, but they are always bringing in South Indians or the mythical Dravidians, when infact the majority of Indians in UK are not even from the South. This is the level of their knowledge, the most outdated ideas of AIT which even mainstream proponents of AIT have discarded (example the racial interpretation) they repeat, and these retards then comment on everything under the sun.

Anyway Note the GCSE stats:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How ethnic groups fare


The Ofsted survey, which monitored schools in 25 education authorities in
England, shows the strengths and weaknesses of the different groups and
how boys fare compared with girls


Bangladeshi


The smallest of the main ethnic groups, Bangladeshis are also among the
least likely to have been born in Britain. Language problems depress
performance at primary level, where their results are causing concern. By
GCSE, they have made up ground, but are less likely than other Asians to
stay on in education and more likely to end up with manual jobs. Girls do
slightly better than boys.


Percentage of population: 0.3
GCSE (5 A*-C) 1996: 25%
GCSE (5 A*-C) 1998: 33%
School exclusions per 1,000 pupils: 9
Percentage of 1998 higher education entrants: 0.6


Caribbean


Of all the ethnic groups, black Caribbean pupils' results are causing most
concern. After a generally good start at school, results fall away even
before the end of primary education. They have the lowest scores at GCSE,
by far the highest exclusion rate and are the most likely to leave school
at 16. Girls do better than boys except in maths and science.


Percentage of population: 0.9
GCSE (5 A*-C) 1996: 23%
1998: 29%
School exclusions per 1,000 pupils: 160
Percentage of 1998 higher education entrants: 1.0


Chinese


Chinese and other Asian groups from outside the Indian sub-continent are
by far the most successful in educational terms. Although only 0.7 per
cent of the UK population, they are well represented in selective schools
and universities, more than 80 per cent staying in education after the age
of 16. They are also the least likely to be excluded from school.


Percentage of population: 0.7
GCSE (5 A*-C) 1998: 61%
School exclusions per 1,000 pupils: 5
Percentage of 1998 higher education entrants: 2


Indian


More than a quarter of the ethnic-minority population is of Indian
descent, and their members comfortably outscore their white counterparts
in examinations. Those in education are more likely than other Asian
groups to have been born in Britain, so do not face the same language
problems. At least two thirds stay on in education after 16.


Percentage of population 1.5
GCSE (5 A*-C) 1998: 54%
School exclusions per 1,000 pupils: 22
Percentage of 1998 higher education entrants: 4.0


Pakistani


One of the largest ethnic-minority groups, with almost 1 per cent of the
population, Pakistani pupils tend to do poorly in primary school, but
catch up as their English improves. GCSE results have risen during the
Nineties, but are still low by comparison with other groups. More than
half - more boys than girls - stay in education beyond the age of 16 and
university entry is growing.


Percentage of population: 0.9
GCSE (5 A*-C) 1996: 23%
1998: 29%
School exclusions per 1,000 pupils: 35
Percentage of 1998 higher education entrants: 2.2


White


National averages for white pupils disguise enormous differences between
social groups: working-class boys, for example, are as big a concern to
ministers as any ethnic group. Even without such distinctions, white
teenagers are more likely than blacks or Asians to leave school at the
first opportunity. They are also marginally under-represented in higher
education, compared with the main ethnic groups.


Percentage of population: 94.5
GCSE (5 A*-C) 1998: 47%
School exclusions per 1,000 pupils: 28
Percentage of 1998 higher education entrants: 89.8

http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/...s02009.html?130
2437<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only Chinese perform better.
  Reply
#29
guys,

Don't be carried away by National Review racial science garbage propounded by Derbyshire and Pearson types . Disparaging "lower caste" Indian, SE Asians, Native Americans, Blacks etc is a part of specific driven agenda.
  Reply
#30
True. We must avoid using caste based IQ analysis since that points towards a race based castism. Castism we know is not race based, rather job/duty based. It is possible that people of particular caste have low IQ, but reason for that may depend on extend to which brain used to do his/her regular jobs. If a person from a low caste is groomed from childhood, it is possible that he/she has a very high IQ. We have always seen exceptional people coming from low castes.
  Reply
#31
Second dhu and shamu's posts. 90% of a baby's brain is formed (neurons are encouraged to make more connections to their neighbours, and thus increase intelligence) by age 5. If a baby is in a stimulus-rich environment, its brain will grow more. Most "upper caste" people are richer, more well educated, and have the time and initiative to make their baby's brain grow.
  Reply
#32
Because certain things can be used by ignorant idiots doesn't mean one has to stop scientific research, let me give you an example, if my caste is found to have an overall IQ of only 90, that doesn't mean the gov't can set up its own reverse discrimination because of my castes low IQ. We deal with individuals not groups and no amount of data will tell you exactly what IQ a person has, for all we know that person might hav an IQ of 130 and is an outlier of my caste.

We will always have morons in the world and if we stop researching certain things there are many things of benefit that are lost, let me give you an example, sickle cell disease has a very high incidence among people of African descent when compared to people of European descent, a century ago science didn't know why this was, and for all we know ignorant KKK types were probably saying that it was Gods way of punishing them, if scientists stopped research into this because of its sensitive nature we would still be in the dark about it, now we know that it has something to do with an adaptive mechanism against another disease Malaria, which has high prevalnce in Africa (if anyone wants to know the full explanation), check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease

Or how about Tay-Sachs which was mostly found in Ashkenazi Jews, cystic-fibrosis in people of European descent.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Historical significance

Tay-Sachs disease has become a model for the prevention of all genetic diseases. In the United States before 1970, the disease affected about 50–70 infants each year in Ashkenazi Jewish families. About 10 cases occurred each year in infants from families without identifiable risk factors. Before 1970, the disease had never been diagnosed at the time of birth. Physicians saw the disease for the first time in infants that failed to thrive, and they could do nothing for the parents or family. Although the genetic basis of the disease was understood, antenatal testing was not available, and families with a Tay-Sachs infant faced a one in four probability of another devastating outcome with each future pregnancy.[5]

Michael Kaback, a medical resident in pediatric neurology at Johns Hopkins University, saw two Tay-Sachs families in 1969. At the time, researchers had just uncovered the biochemical basis of the disease as the failure of an enzyme in a critical metabolic pathway. Kaback developed and later automated an enzyme assay test for detecting heterozygotes (carriers). This inexpensive test proved statistically reliable, with low rates of both errors and false positives. For the first time in medical history, it was possible to screen broadly for a genetic disease, and a physician or medical professional could counsel a family on strategies for prevention. Within a few decades, the disease had been virtually eliminated among Ashkenazi Jews. Most cases today are in families that do not have identifiable risk factors.[5]

Kaback and his associates also developed the first mass screening program for genetic disease. Every aspect of this landmark study was meticulously planned, including community liaison, blood-draw procedure, laboratory set-up, assay protocol, and follow-up genetic counseling. On a Sunday in May 1971, more than 1800 young adults of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry in the Baltimore and Washington D.C. area were voluntarily screened for carrier status.[35] The success of the program demonstrated the efficacy of voluntary screening of an identifiable at-risk populations. Within a few years, these screening programs had been repeated among Ashkenazi Jews throughout the United States, Canada, western Europe, and Israel.[36][37][38]

In the first 30 years of testing, from 1969 through 1998, more than 1.3 million persons were tested, and 48,864 carriers were identified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If scientists instead said that we are all equally prone to the disease just to keep the PC crowd happy, people would probably still be suffering from the disease.

In the case of Jews, I am 100% sure that some nutty xtian retard had said that its Gods way of punishing them for killing the mythical Jesus.

Or how about this drug that went on clinical trial most recently specifically for people of African descent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Finally can anyone honestly tell me that even with state of the art diet and health care the Mbuti will produce NBA stars:

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

Their average height is 137cm or 4'6, which is too low to be caused solely through poor diet (even medieval Europeans or Indians were taller).
  Reply
#33
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Second dhu and ashyam's posts. 90% of a baby's brain is formed (neurons are encouraged to make more connections to their neighbours, and thus increase intelligence) by age 5. If a baby is in a stimulus-rich environment, its brain will grow more. Most "upper caste" people are richer, more well educated, and have the time and initiative to make their baby's brain grow. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All correct, but that has nothing to do with specifically stating IQ results by caste, its only when we make causal attributions without much data that we are skating on thin ice.

If I were to say Kammas (my caste) have a comparitively low IQ as a group based on a number of repeated IQ test results, then I am stating a fact, but I said nothing about why this is, for all I know it could be due to genes, environment, or an interaction of both. Stating that caste and IQ are correlated doesn't mean that one can make a causal attribution.

To find out why this group has a lower IQ, you would then need to go to the next step and do adoption studies, so you study the average IQ of low income Kamma children adopted by say well off Brahmin parents (who could offer them the stimulating environment that their own kids enjoy), if the differences were mainly due to this difference in environment then you would find that the IQs of these well off Brahmin-adopted Kamma kids will be closer to those of upper class Brahmin children rather than their low income Kamma counterparts. If you find the opposite then you could say that socio-economic differences cannot solely explain the differences. But whatever findings you obtain they need to be replicated a number of times before a firm conclusion can be drawn, and in the end if socio-economic factors don't account for most of the IQ difference then its more likely that genes or an interaction between genes and environment play a role in the IQ difference.

Now would a lay person know all this, I doubt it, but does that mean we should stop research because the average person on the street is ignorant of the difference between correlation and causation, absolutely not, in that case its the job of the education system to better prepare students to understand how scientific methodology works (and which I find that Indian Education System is woefully unprepared to do).

Claiming everything to be some gora conspiracy is no answer, if that really was the case you wouldn't see results published consistently showing that North East Asians have a higher average IQ than those of European descent, now correct me if I am wrong but the last time I checked Koreans, Chinese etc were not even considered Caucasian let alone white.
  Reply
#34
<!--QuoteBegin-ashyam+May 10 2008, 12:07 PM-->QUOTE(ashyam @ May 10 2008, 12:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->True. We must avoid using caste based IQ analysis since that points towards a race based castism. Castism we know is not race based, rather job/duty based. It is possible that people of particular caste have low IQ, but reason for that may depend on extend to which brain used to do his/her regular jobs. If a person from a low caste is groomed from childhood, it is possible that he/she has a very high IQ. We have always seen exceptional people coming from low castes.
[right][snapback]81458[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Caste was based on occupation, not race

The initial selection for caste must have been based on aptitude in
certain jobs. For many centuries, it was based on aptitude
In short, people migrated to castes based on aptitude for
the caste skills

The occupation duties of certain castes,
create a strong genetic selection pressure for the members to fit into
the caste niche

A-la- dog breeding

different dog breeds have skills in different areas

It so happens that 'g' what is measured in IQ skills
tracks skills found in brahmin and merchant castes

This only refers to bell curve

Individuals may have widely differing IQs in different castes
  Reply
#35
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+May 10 2008, 06:15 PM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ May 10 2008, 06:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Second dhu and ashyam's posts. 90% of a baby's brain is formed (neurons are encouraged to make more connections to their neighbours, and thus increase intelligence) by age 5. If a baby is in a stimulus-rich environment, its brain will grow more. Most "upper caste" people are richer, more well educated, and have the time and initiative to make their baby's brain grow.
[right][snapback]81460[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Brahmins are no more than middle class

I have seen posts that they are the poorest in many states

Yet their avg IQ is higher

Upto middle class levels, nutrition and schooling helps IQ
After that it plateaus
  Reply
#36
IQ bell curves observed
during my college years

I went to REC
50% from TN and 50% from rest of India

Bell curve rankings were
1. South Indian brahmin
2. TN Upper-OBC ( TN dwijas are OBC )
3. North Indian upper caste
4. TN MBC
5. North Indian OBC
6. Dalits

There were no north Indian brahmins in the sample

This sort of follows my islamic hypothesis, meaning the muslims selectively massacred the more prominent hindus ( higher IQ ), and created a truncated IQ curve in northe india
  Reply
#37
http://www.pucl.org/reports/TamilNadu/2001/iit.htm

Brahmin communities dominate IIT-Chennai faculties. Totally there are 427 faculties available. Out of this, 400 faculty persons belong to Brahmin communities. If we took survey in other 5 IIT's, we can find there also Brahmins domination

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000201.html

I did an informal survey a couple of years ago on the top 100 IIT entrants - incredibly, newspapers here in India list the 100 or so highest ranked IITians each year. 17 happened to be Tamil Brahmins

--

In the 1931 caste census, they were 3% of the TN population
and TN is 6% of Indian populatorn
so a community of 0.18%, gets 17% of top 100

and this community is no more than middle class on average
  Reply
#38
IQ estimate of the parsis

The Iran IQ is 84
Add in Islam deficit of 6 makes the base Zorastrian IQ = 90

Incidentally it is considered virtually impossible for a civilization to arise with IQ < 90, which is why when the nutrition and literacy improves in India, I expect Indian IQ to reach 90

The bulk of parsis converted, only a section of the super-elite, priests etc fled to India, possibly the top 1%, this would put the Parsi IQ > 120
  Reply
#39
http://savekerala.blogspot.com/2006/02/uni...s-of-india.html

Bengali

One Bengali = poet.
Two Bengalis = a film society.
Three Bengalis = political party.
Four Bengalis = two political parties.

Bihari

One Bihari = Laloo Prasad Yadav.
Two Biharis = booth-capturing squad.
Three Biharis = caste killing.
Four Biharis = entire literate population of Patna.

Punjabi
One Punjabi =100 kg hulk named Pinky.
Two Punjabis = Pinky with his bigger brother Twinky.
Three Punjabis = assault on the McAloo Tikkis at the local McDonalds.
Four Punjabis = combined IQ equal to one.

UP Bhaiyya

One UP bhaiyya = a milkman.
Two UP bhaiyyas = halwai shop.
Three UP bhaiyyas = a fist-fight in the UP assembly.
Four UP bhaiyyas = mosque-destruction squad.

Gujju

One Gujju = a share-broker in a Bombay train.
Two Gujjus = rummy game in a Bombay train.
Three Gujjus = Bombay's noisiest restaurant.
Four Gujjus = stock market scam.

Andhraite

One Andhraite = chilli farmer.
Two Andhraites = software company in New Jersey.
Three Andhraites = Naxalite outfit.
Four Andhraites = song-and-dance number in a Telugu movie.

Kashmiri

One Kashmiri = carpet salesman.
Two Kashmiris = carpet factory.
Three Kashmiris = terrorist outfit.
Four Kashmiris = shoot-at-sight order.

Tamil-Brahmin

One Tamil-Brahmin = priest at the Vardarajaperumal temple.
Two Tamil-Brahmins = maths tuition class.
Three Tamil-Brahmins = queue outside the U.S consulate at 4 a.m.
Four Tamil-Brahmins = Thyagaraja music festival in Santa Clara

Bombayite

One Bombayite = footpath vada-pav stall.
Two Bombayites = film studio.
Three Bombayites = slum
Four Bombayites = the number of people standing on your foot in the train at rush hour.

Sindhi

One Sindhi = currency racket.
Two Sindhis = papad factory.
Three Sindhis = duplicate goods shop in Ulhasnagar.
Four Sindhis = Hong Kong Retail Traders Association.

Marwari

One Marwari = the neighbourhood foodstuffs adulterator.
Two Marwaris = 50% of Calcutta.
Three Marwaris = finish off all Gujaratis & Sindhis.
Four Marwaris = threaten the Jews as a community.

Mallu

One Mallu = coconut stall.
Two Mallus = a boat race.
Three Mallus = Gulf job racket.
Four Mallus = oil slick.

  Reply
#40
Some NRI factoids from Arthur Hu's website

http://www.arthurhu.com/index/overrep.htm

Socio-Ecnonomic Rankings (Poverty)
-----------------------------------
Group Families in Poverty %
Japanese 3.4
Filipino 5.2
Melanesian 6.5
White 7.0
NHwhite 7.0
AsIndian 7.2
US 10.0
Thai 10.8
Chinese 11.1
Asian 11.4
AsPI 11.6
Guamanian 12.3
Hawaiian 12.7
Micronesian 14.4
Korean 14.7
PacIs 15.0
Polynesian 15.3
OtherAs 15.6
Other PI 18.7
Tongan 20.6
Foreign-born (total) 22.2%
Hispanic 22.3
Vietnam 23.8
Samoan 24.5
Black 26.3
NatAm 27.0
Laotian 32.2
Foreign-born arriving after '90 33.3%


----

Educational Rankings:
-----------------------------------
Gay
Asian Indian
Jewish
Chinese
Asian
White
Hispanic
Black

---

Asians vs Jews vs Chinese vs. Indians
If we set Jewish representation at 1.0, the Chinese are
better in some numbers, but only the Asian Indians are consistently
better in almost every categor.


  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 18 Guest(s)