I am in the midst of culling no-longer-needed research material (literally: some thousands of pages of different kinds of printed materials, all of which have been housed in banker's boxes for more than a few years), and I have been playing YouTube videos of various kinds to get me through.

I just saw a video that, previously, I never knew existed: "What Are the Smartest Countries in the World?"

According to this video, these are the "smartest countries in the world"...and since this line-up was mostly a startling surprise to me, I thought it might be of interest here.

According to this video, and based on the average IQ of the inhabitants of any given country (which includes those countries which did NOT make the "Top Ten" list), these countries are:

1) Singapore (average IQ: 108)
2) South Korea (average IQ: 106)
3) Japan (average IQ: 105)
4) China (average IQ: 105)
5) Taiwan (average IQ: 104)
6) Italy (average IQ: 102
7) Iceland (average IQ: 101)
8) Mongolia (average IQ: 101)
9) Switzerland (average IQ: 101)
10) Austria (average IQ: 100)

[Some explanatory notes:

Hong Kong is not on the list because it is not a separate country--it is now a part of China.

Taiwan is identified on the video as "Taiwan," rather than the Republic of China.

When this list was created, there must have been some consideration given which selects out Austria from [undoubtedly] the OTHER countries which ALSO have an average IQ of 100 (a score which is, by design, deemed to be statistically the "average" IQ for homo sapiens sapiens in general). Whatever this consideration might have been, it is not explained on the video.]

I was surprised by this list (I still am!), and I am wondering what responses anyone here might have.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2018 04:19PM by Tevai.

Interesting post Tevai. I came across another interesting fact the other day in regard to IQ, but I am not sure how accurate the findings are. I read that IQ is experiencing some sort of inflation over time, called the "Flynn Effect". The findings indicate an increase of three IQ points per decade amongst many populations. People are getting smarter as a whole, however, there are exceptions for some countries.

http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/02/is-our-collective-iq-increasing/#.Wrv5mi7wZ0w

In case you want to see it, here's a full list:

https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

Dead-last on that list is Equatorial Guinea, with an average IQ of 59.

That page states that the scores (and interpretations of them) are "highly controversial." Yeah, no kidding.

Because, see, I consider it extremely likely that if I went to Equatorial Guinea, and adopted a newborn, and brought it to the US...where I raised it like any other US child, that it wouldn't have an IQ of 59.

So, what's the deal?
Does the IQ test not really measure "intelligence" (or even potential)?
Does poverty/culture overwhelm IQ testing?
(since there is a very clear inverse correlation between median income and IQ score on that list, that's very likely)
Are people in the below-100 countries *really* just not that smart, and if so, is it genetic?

I don't know. Despite lots of academic (and non-academic) arguing, nobody else knows, either.

Which makes me think that it would be a good idea not to "judge" a country or the people in it by their IQ scores.

Exactly what I wanted to say. IQ may not measure anything more than the ability to do IQ tests. The link to intelligence has not been proven. It's also clear that a lot of the ability to do IQ tests is cultural.

For me, IQ tests are just an amusing toy.

The link of "what" to intelligence has "not been proven"?

The link of IQ scores to intelligence.

Great response, Hie; casting doubt upon both this particular IQ Study, and the legitimacy of IQ determinations in general. Yet, those who enjoy such comparative nonsense, continue to post pseudo-intellectual responses here, as if they can factor out the problems you rise and still provide this study with some legitimacy.
_______________________________________________

"Does the IQ test not really measure "intelligence" (or even potential)?"

COMMENT: Most probably not. "Intelligence" is a vague and illusive term to begin with. Even when it can make some sense, it is rife with unmeasurable parameters, like environmental influences as you point out, that defy the meaningfulness of the data, not to mention its interpretation.
__________________________________________

"Does poverty/culture overwhelm IQ testing?
(since there is a very clear inverse correlation between median income and IQ score on that list, that's very likely)
Are people in the below-100 countries *really* just not that smart, and if so, is it genetic?"

COMMENT: Yes, of course, but not just at the extremes of poverty and affluence. An IQ determination is a generalization based upon the assessment of *individuals* who come from a variety of highly nuanced socio-economic backgrounds. You would have to have a enormous data set to cancel out these bias, if it could be done at all, and most certainly any conclusion about particular countries would be just ridiculous. (IMHO)
___________________________________________

"I don't know. Despite lots of academic (and non-academic) arguing, nobody else knows, either.

COMMENT: Well, true. But I think your doubts (and mine) are very objective.
___________________________________________

"Which makes me think that it would be a good idea not to "judge" a country or the people in it by their IQ scores.

COMMENT: Yes, to put it kindly. But even presenting such a "study" as somehow legitimate is a false judgment, and therefore a bad idea.

Perhaps your surprise is also due to the fact that the Ashkenazi Jew has the highest recorded IQ of any ethnic group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

The scores are skewed by the Flynn Effect for the Ashkenazi Jewry, according to this wordpress blog:

"Try to solve this math problem: (100+100+100+100+92)/5. You would think the answer would be 98.4. But not according to Richard Lynn who counted this to be 94.

It has been widely cited on the internet that Israel’s average IQ is only 94. But how did Prof. Lynn arrive at the figure?

First, he threw out three tests showing Israelis averaging 100. Then he took the two remaining tests and shaved off two points, even though most nations got additional points due to the Flynn Effect and other factors.

The reality is that he should’ve dumped the test that showed that Israelis scored only 92 on a test. It is what statistians call an outlier. In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data and for that reason it is generally discarded. For instance, if all the opinion polls showed Barack Obama winning by 5% and one poll showed McCain up 4%, you would discard the pro-McCain poll as an aberration.

Similarly if 4 out of 5 tests of Israelis show an IQ score of 100 and one is significantly below that, that lone test should be discarded.

Instead, Lynn turned 92 into 90 and 100 into 98, discarded three others tests, and came up with a very low number of 94. It is mind-boggling to think that when 4 out of 5 tests give an IQ score of 100, he somehow manages to give Israel an average score of 94!

Lynn also gives the lowest IQ estimate (107) of anyone for Ashkenazi Jews living in the United States.

Now let’s look at the data.

A test of Israeli school children resulted in an average IQ of 100. The Israeli military conducted two tests, one of which was a highly g-loaded adaptation of the Raven’s Matrices, both showing soldiers with an IQ of 100. [S. Kaniel and S. Fisherman, “Level of Performance and Distribution of Errors in the Progressive Matrices Test: A Comparison of Ethiopian Immigrant and Native Israeli Adolescents,” International Journal of Psychology, vol.26, 1991, pp.25-33; J.R. Flynn, “Israeli Military IQ Tests: Gender Differences Small; IQ Gains Large,” Journal of Biosocial Science, vol.30, 1998, pp.541-553.]

In Israel, almost all Jews – male and female – are drafted into the military, so it is not a specially selected group.

At the time when these IQ tests were conducted, a majority of Israeli Jews were Sephardic who score about 14 points less than Ashkenazic Israelis. All the IQ tests were conducted prior to the arrival of a million mostly-Russian Ashkenazi Jews after the fall of the Soviet Union. At the time, less than 30% were full-bloodied Ashkenazim without any Sephardic ancestry. More than 70% of Israelis were Arabs, Sephardim or a mix of Sepharim and Ashkenazim. After the wave of Russian immigration, about 35% of Israelis are Ashkenazim without any Sephardi ancestry.

If you count anyone who self-identified as Ashkenazi as such, their average IQ would be about 107-110. [If the average IQ is 100, and Ashkenazim outscore the Sepharim by 14 points, and the two populations are equal in size, then Ashkenazim must score 107 and Sephardim 93. However, since Sephardic population was greater than Ashkenazi at the time of these tests, the former’s IQ must be somewhat higher than 107.]

But why is the Israeli Ashkenazi IQ lower than the American Ashkenazi IQ of 113-115?

Because, as noted, many of the self-identified Israeli Ashkenazim are actually half or at least a quarter Sephardic. Just take a look at the average Israeli Ashkenazi – many are clearly partly Sephardic. Living in a country where most of the population belongs to a different group, and where you feel no compulsion not to marry that group will result in significant intermarriage.

With the arrival of a million Ashkenazim from Russia, one can be pretty certain that the average Israeli Ashkenazi IQ has temporarily gone up because Russians rarely intermarried with Sephardim.

But as Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews in Israel intermarry, the former will raise their average and the latter will drop.

Finally, the idea of Israel having a low IQ is inconsistent with other facts. In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the second largest number of startup companies (3,500) after the United States, an amazing feat considering that several European countries have a population ten to fifteen times that of Israel, and the high IQ China has 200 times as many people.

Israel is third in the world in college degrees and first in graduate degrees. Israel has the world’s second highest per capita rate of publishing new books and has more museums per capita than any other country, as well as the highest percentage of home computers. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin.

None of these facts are consistent with Lynn’s claim of a low Israeli IQ."

https://ethnicgenome.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/israeli-iq-not-94-at-all/

Nice job in finding this article Amyjo. I admire your ability to research topics in such detail that no stone is left unturned. It certainly answers what Tevai found so surprising in the original post. At least I am assuming such, that Tevai is well aware that something is askew in IQ research.

Why does this particular topic, i.e: the intelligence of those with Jewish ancestry, or a particular type of Jewish ancestry compared to that of the rest of humanity, come up so often here? Doesn’t it strike anyone else as racsist and inappropriate? If this same conversation were about Asian intelligence v. Caucasian intelligence or African intelligence I think this board would be in an uproar. What makes this an exception? Personally, I find it offensive.

lurkinmerkin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does this particular topic, i.e: the
> intelligence of those with Jewish ancestry, or a
> particular type of Jewish ancestry compared to
> that of the rest of humanity, come up so often
> here? Doesn’t it strike anyone else as racsist
> and inappropriate? If this same conversation were
> about Asian intelligence v. Caucasian intelligence
> or African intelligence I think this board would
> be in an uproar. What makes this an exception?
> Personally, I find it offensive.

Jews are not a race. Race has nothing to do with Jewishness, and Jews are of all the major races on the planet: there are white Jews and black Jews and Asian Jews and, most certainly, a historically and very highly honored group of Hispanic Jews, but no Australian aborigine Jews I am aware of...and no Papuan New Guinea Jews I am aware of...and no Eskimo Jews I am aware of...and probably very few, if any, Native American Jews--although, in reality, there might be a few).

On the other hand, this question IS, in part, about race and intelligence level. It is well established that, as Amyjo said, Ashkenazi Jews (one of the MANY Jewish "ethnic" groups) have, on average, the highest IQs in the world. The continuing question always is: "Why?"

Asians (as a group) have higher "on average" IQs than do "white people" AS A GROUP, and again, the continuing question always is: "Why?"

In sub-Saharan Africa, there are certain tribes that have higher average intelligence levels than do other tribes, and again, the continuing question always is: "Why?"

Is it nature...or is it nurture?

These are important questions.

I agree with Hie's observation that if he adopted an infant from Equatorial Guinea (the country which is dead last on the IQ list of countries), and raised that child as a part of his family, that the child would very likely have a CONSIDERABLY higher IQ growing up, and also throughout adulthood, than would that child's biological family members who were still back in Equatorial Guinea.

The question of human intelligence is complicated by the fact that there are different kinds of intelligence (for example: Asians, as a group, excel well beyond white people, as a group, in spatial thinking and reasoning, which is exceedingly important when it comes to science and mathematics)...

...while Ashkenazi Jews (in particular) tend to excel in areas related to words (which, in real contemporary life, means:
law, government, history, creative writing of all kinds, film making, publications of all kinds, etc.). Again, the question is: "Why?"

In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, I think two of the most important reasons are:

1) Ashkenazi Jews, in particular, have historically chosen marriage partners by selecting for intelligence. Generation-by-generation, most Ashkenazi Jews have consciously and specifically preferred higher intelligence in those they married. Do this for two or three thousand years, generation by generation, and the offspring of those marriages are going to be higher in intelligence than the ancestors who lived before them.

2) Jewish culture honors learning above "everything" (assuming that everyone involved is a mensch: a "good person"). The entire culture is built around learning...learning...learning...from literal toddlerhood (honey is dripped on big-toy-sized Hebrew letters to associate learning with good things from the time a child is barely able to sit up straight)...to the culture of individual Jewish households which emphasize learning of all kinds (including physics by learning how plumbing works, and chemistry by means of cooking)...and once a child is old enough to go to school, formal ("legal") "argument" begins as a normal part of life. (Actually it begins much earlier, in an informal way: kids
arguing their bedtimes or whatever using the methods of legal
argumentation...and being honored with happy smiles and compliments, and being danced around the room, when they succeed.)

I think that learning Hebrew along with whatever language(s) are the daily language(s) of any specific residential location is important as well. Growing up bilingual and bi-literate is an enormously effective way to stretch any given child's intelligence to is full capacities.

Switch over to Asian intelligence (which shares some of the same values as Ashkenazi Judaism, but expressed in Asian cultural ways), and I think the typically high proportion of fish in the Asian diet has an extremely positive effect on children both in utero and after they are born.

In addition: there is an argument made that I do not really understand but it has something to do with the Asian geography, and how the specific challenges Asians face/faced from their geographical area contributed heavily to their increased spatial abilities (which exist; this is a proven fact).

To sum up: Jews are not "a" race, and Jews come from just about ALL races--from very white, through an amazing spectrum of different "browns," to very black (Ethiopian Jews are, indeed, typically "very black")...and even Ashkenazi Jews are
not all from Eastern European ancestry, since people from any
race can convert into becoming an Ashkenazi Jew (and, in fact, most converts to Judaism, which is the Jewishly-legal way to enter the overall Jewish tribe, do choose to identify as Ashkenazi)...plus you have all the Asian Jews (from China, from India, etc.), so a discussion of intelligence in Jews is just about as opposite from "racism" as it is possible to get.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2018 06:59PM by Tevai.

Uhmmm ... you just argued that the alleged fact that Ashkenazi Jews deliberately bred for intelligence contributes to the fact that they have “the highest IQs in th world.” I think your definition of “race,” is overly broad and color based and does not detract from my argument and complaint in any material way, regardless of the fact that there are many different shades of Jews, something I’m well-aware of, but chose not to address, as it was unessesary to my point.

That you have argued that a specific group of genetically interrelated humans have “the highest IQs in the world,” the genetic relatedness being basis of all racist thinking, but then supplement that assertion with certain cultural values, doesn’t make your first assertion any less racist. In addition, correct me if I’m wrong, but you and another poster, who is fond of noting their Ashkenazi ancestry at every opportunity, weren’t actually raised in Ashkenazi cultures, or maybe you were and the other poster wasn’t, but it still adds up to the same racist implication, that one group of humans’ genes are some how inherently more intelligent than another’s.

My ancestry is Greek; the ancient Greeks were not intellectuall slouches. In their time they might, arguably, have been considered far more ilntelligent than their Jewish neighbors to the southeast. However, that doesn’t mean a damned thing with regard to either of our IQs, or anyone else’s of a different ancestry today (or any other day for that matter).

lurkinmerkin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uhmmm ... you just argued that the alleged fact
> that Ashkenazi Jews deliberately bred for
> intelligence contributes to the fact that they
> have “the highest IQs in th world.” I think
> your definition of “race,” is overly broad and
> color based and does not detract from my argument
> and complaint in any material way, regardless of
> the fact that there are many different shades of
> Jews, something I’m well-aware of, but chose not
> to address, as it was unessesary to my point.

Ashkenazi Jews are those Jews (mostly) who are descended from the areas we would generally call Eastern Europe or Western Asia (the "stans," for example). They generally speak Yiddish as their "Jewish language" and their "minhag" (Jewish religious "tradition") is quite different from other Jewish traditions: Sephardim [mostly: their ancestors had something to do with the Iberian Peninsula and/or northern Africa...plus Greece and its surrounding areas, including the Mediterranean, during the Ottoman Empire]...Mizrachim [Middle Eastern Jews, from the Arabian Peninsula and other, now-Muslim, lands, etc.]...India...China...Africa (to my knowledge: eastern Africa specifically)...

In no way does "Ashkenazim" equal "all, or mostly all," Jews.

The Ashkenazim did, absolutely, select for intelligence when it came time to select marriage partners (and this also applies to at least some of the Sephardim). This is why the studies of intelligence among Jews are careful to differentiate the specific "Jewish group," because "Ashkenazim" does NOT equal "Jews in general."


> That you have argued that a specific group of
> genetically interrelated humans...

This is misleading because converts to Judaism DID enter the Ashkenazi group (in particular), and also because there is a difference between individual families who are, each on their own, "selecting for intelligence" when they begin looking for marriage partners, and the vastly geographically spread-out "whole" across Eurasia. A Jewish child born in what is now western Europe is not necessarily (or even logically) related to the Jews of other global areas.


> have "the highest IQs in the world,” the genetic
> relatedness being basis of all racist thinking

Again, "genetic relatedness," when it does exist, is an "also true." Mostly, it doesn't exist except, perhaps, in local areas (some valley in now Poland or something).


> but then supplement that assertion with certain
> cultural values, doesn’t make your first
> assertion any less racist.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Cultural values are NOT racial traits, they are CULTURAL VALUES. As an American, I have a great number of cultural traits which are instantly recognizable as "American" in other areas of the planet--but NO ONE would say that my CULTURAL values are "racial." These are two entirely different things.


> In addition, correct me
> if I’m wrong, but you and another poster, who is
> fond of noting their Ashkenazi ancestry at every
> opportunity, weren’t actually raised in
> Ashkenazi cultures...

My earliest Jewish "influence" was my Uncle Benny (who I learned, as an adult, was never REALLY my uncle...though I was taught that he was). He had given my aunt a Reform siddur (prayerbook), and I used to spend hours and hours trying to figure out the Hebrew parts in it. (I had been able to do this, to a certain extent, with my step-grandfather's high school workbook on Ancient Greek, but I was never able to make the same progress with Hebrew.)

When I went to school, beginning in seventh grade, my important academic classes were with about half (it varied through the years) Jewish kids--to the point where, on Jewish holidays, we who were not Jewish had basically free time that we could use to study whatever we wanted. Though I appreciated the free time to read whatever it was that I was reading at that time, I always felt "left out" that I couldn't be with the Jewish kids doing whatever THEY were doing. There was one girl in particular, a Sephardi Jew whose family had fled to the United States from Thessaloniki during the Holocaust, who had a tremendous effect on me--which she was never aware of because, although she made literally straight A's in EVERY class she ever took through high school graduation, she was very bright but not all that smart. Me being in all the important academic classes (including summer school classes on neat subjects not available during the school year!) with Jews, plus my Uncle Benny, did have a tremendous effect on me, which (once I figured out HOW to do it) certainly led to me becoming a Jew. Also: I grew up within an industry that is very heavily over-represented in Jews, so from the age of three on, I was always living in a kind of semi-Jewish world (despite the fact that most of my maternal relatives were anti-Semitic...which is why my Uncle Benny would not marry my aunt).

> ...or maybe you were and the
> other poster wasn’t, but it still adds up to the
> same racist implication, that one group of
> humans’ genes are some how inherently more
> intelligent than another’s.

Genes are biological, culture is not. You are conflating the two here, and they are very separate things.


> My ancestry is Greek; the ancient Greeks were not
> intellectuall slouches.

The ancient Greeks were definitely not intellectual slouches (except maybe in Sparta, where the cultural values were different than in other parts of what we now think of as Greece).


> In their time they might,
> arguably, have been considered far more
> ilntelligent than their Jewish neighbors to the
> southeast.

Absolutely. I agree with this completely.


> However, that doesn’t mean a damned
> thing with regard to either of our IQs, or anyone
> else’s of a different ancestry today (or any
> other day for that matter).

If you do not think that higher-than-average intelligence (in today's understanding: IQ) is the result of either culture, OR genes, OR brain function...what DO you think IS responsible for higher intelligence in one human being when compared to another?

What is the actual cause which creates difference between one child and another (either children within the same family...or the people who live next door...or the people in any given community...or in any given nation)???

I do think that diet (including hydration) and environmental circumstances (lead poisoning from pipes, air pollution, violence, etc.) play a sometimes enormous role in all of this, but aside from these kinds of issues...

...if it is NOT genes (or brain function)...and it is NOT culture [and I absolutely agree that it is NOT race, if this is what you are saying], then what IS it???

I think you are the one conflating things Tevai. In a previous post you agree that you think intelligence “IS [emphasis yours]” at least partly racial and then switch to the term “ethnic group” to describe your alleged smartest Ashkenazis. I don’t care which terms, race or ethnicity, you use, though I’m sure socialogists ascribe distinct definitions. The pertinent fact is that race and ethnicity are social constructs that scientists know are genetically meaningless, given that genetic variations among the individuals that make up virtually all of these groups, however sliced, are greater than those between them.

It’s not relevant to my point what accounts for high IQs in some individuals though I tend to agree with the gist of another poster’s contribution to this thread that the degree of congruence between a particular tester’s language and culture with that of a particular test-taker’s education and background is probably the most significant factor. I don’t read here every day and rarely post here, but I’m telling your Ashkenazi obsession looks racist, sounds racist, and smells racist and it’s getting offensive.

lurkinmerkin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you are the one conflating things Tevai.
> In a previous post you agree that you think
> intelligence “IS ” at least partly racial and
> then switch to the term “ethnic group” to
> describe your alleged smartest Ashkenazis. I
> don’t care which terms, race or ethnicity, you
> use, though I’m sure socialogists ascribe
> distinct definitions. The pertinent fact is that
> race and ethnicity are social constructs that
> scientists know are genetically meaningless, given
> that genetic variations among the individuals that
> make up virtually all of these groups, however
> sliced, are greater than those between them.
>
> It’s not relevant to my point what accounts for
> high IQs in some individuals though I tend to
> agree with the gist of another poster’s
> contribution to this thread that the degree of
> congruence between a particular tester’s
> language and culture with that of a particular
> test-taker’s education and background is
> probably the most significant factor. I don’t
> read here every day and rarely post here, but
> I’m telling your Ashkenazi obsession looks
> racist, sounds racist, and smells racist and
> it’s getting offensive.

There is no Ashkenazi obsession coming from Tevai. The subject was broached by another poster, who was replied to in very civil posts. Tevai has more knowledge here than most do on Ashkenazi intelligence but it was in no way the premise of her OP.

It's a meritorious aspect of discussion to include or disclude Israel - as a country measured by its 'average' IQ. The Flynn study skewed the findings, I discovered when trying to figure out why it wasn't counted among the top ten nation states on the report.

That Ashkenazi Jews have the highest variants for intelligence is not racist or an obsessive observation. It is well known, documented and studied.

Tevai brings balance and breadth to this discussion based on her knowledge of factors you lack understanding.

I for one learn much from reading Tevai's posts. How on earth anyone could find a discussion of intelligence as it relates to the population of Ashkenazi Jews in relation to other groups offensive, is wearing blinders.

And that is frankly, offensive.

If anyone is obsessing here, it isn't Tevai. It is you.

And no, Jews are not a race or an ethnicity. They belong and identify as a religious group. There is no bloodline to being Jewish. It is a tribe of people who choose to associate as one community.

Not all Jews do. Some of the most prominent among them in the sciences and the arts are secular Jews. Traditionally their focus has been on getting the best education possible, while helping humanity as a part of their upbringing.

Is it a coincidence that of all the world population Jews make up 24% of Nobel prizes awarded to date? When they are less than 1% of the total world's population? How is that so? It isn't because of bias or racism. It is based on accomplishments and their intellectual prowess.

How could anyone find their achievements offensive or racist? Ashkenazi Jewry aside, they tend to be over-achievers, gifted, and multi-faceted.

The author of the flynn study skewed his findings to exclude Israel from the top ten highest IQ countries. When they are as high in that category as the other countries that were mentioned. And it is THAT is worthy of discussion whether you like it or not.

So perhaps the Flynn study is biased, prejudiced and "racist." Although there is nothing racial about what it means to be Jewish, nor is it an ethnicity.

Israel is still a country however, that by its score alone should have been included in the top ten countries. And was excluded either by accident or by design. That wasn't Tevai's observation, it was the observations by other posters that she responded to in kind.

Amyjo...what you did with this post is truly excellent.

This is such a difficult subject to explain: there are so many different levels of reality...and there is human history going back to the beginnings of agriculture...and there are so many important exceptions to explain as the general facts are being discussed...

...and you explained everything SO WELL!!!

Thank you!!!

:D

Interesting topic, Tevai.

Learning that the same study skewed the Israeli findings is important to the discussion. Namely, if it can slant it's findings for the Jews of Israel, how accurate is it? Or rather, goes to bias of the social scientist, or worse: prejudice.

IQ is very good at measuring a small slice of human intelligence among people who have familial advantages and belong to the group whose members devised the particular test.

On the first point, IQ tests don't test artistic or musical ability and they disadvantage people with learning disorders. So dyslexics like an Einstein, a Bohr, a Newton, or a DaVinci would have looked mediocre at best and disabled at worse. Oops.

There are in all tests a bias towards the people who formulate the particular test. This is inevitable. To take the extreme case, if confronted with an English test, an Arab or Japanese would fare worse than a Briton. Within linguistic groups the biases are less pronounced because the testers try their best to eliminate such distortions, but flaws remain.

IQ tests are, within those limits, generally pretty good at predicting what has traditionally been "academic" potential in traditional "academic" institutions. As for supposed rankings of countries, I'm skeptical. The top five of those countries are all in the Confucian cultural stream, meaning that they value and emphasize particularly the sort of things that IQ tests assume mean intelligence.

And as for the notion that Austria, at average, is the 10th best in the world seems unlikely for the simple reason that there would then be only 9 countries out of nearly 200 that are above average. Surely that is far more deviation from the normal distribution than one might expect.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And as for the notion that Austria, at average, is
> the 10th best in the world seems unlikely for the
> simple reason that there would then be only 9
> countries out of nearly 200 that are above
> average. Surely that is far more deviation from
> the normal distribution than one might expect.

In the link I added above, there are 10 countries over 100 (they kept Hong Kong separate from China), and 5 that are AT 100. Every other country in the world is "below average."

Which, as you point out, is a very skewed distribution, and suggests there's something wrong with the sampling :)

Yes, the statistical abnormality was obvious to me.

And I'm from the 176th country on that list!

Is there a list which shows which countries have contributed the most to mankind in terms of contributions to humankind, literature, medicine, science etc? If such a list exists how does it compare with the list under discussion?

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a list which shows which countries have
> contributed the most to mankind in terms of
> contributions to humankind, literature, medicine,
> science etc?

I don't know of any such list (I do know that, in 1911, Einstein became an Austrian citizen for awhile ;) ).


> If such a list exists how does it
> compare with the list under discussion?

Literature and the arts (not heavily g-loaded) are significantly different from [modern] medicine and science (both of which are heavily g-loaded), so this is an essentially apples-and-oranges question.

In countries whose contributions to science and mathematics (and also, very probably, engineering and technology) are prominent, the g-load factor would very likely be of great import.

“Genius and Eminence” by Robert S. Albert.
Very, very interesting.

Where is Lake Wobegone on the list?

The smartest people in the world are those who aren't suckered into join the Mormon's and moving to Utah. I feel quite hopeful for the world. However, Utah needs immediate assistance.

The top scores go to countries with very strong education systems and which engage in a lot of testing (giving their students a facility with taking tests.) The bottom scores go to high poverty parts of the world. I don't think this has as much to do with intelligence as it does to access to education and everything that supports it.

For me Taiwan is the most interesting country on that list. I have been there for a week last year and a week this year. Amazing progress. All the people I came in contact with were very sharp.
With that said, there is only 25 million people there. I suspect that if you took the smartest 25 million Americans, they would eclipse what Taiwan has.
This is true for all the counties on the list.
I suspect that this is also true for the stupidest countries in the world... our dumbest will dominate too.
America and China are not normal countries as they are so large. You can't compare them to other normal countries.

No Lamanite representation in the Top Ten. Really?

More seriously, the Top 3 countries don't surprise me in the least. I am, however, surprised not to see Denmark or Norway in the Top Ten.

I don't personally mean to be boastful but thanks to the blessings of the wondrous Correlation program I can't help but be that way as I gloat about how marvelous our peculiar gospel is. Besides I also have to do missionary work, reactivate lost sheep, and get the exmos back in as our mission is to assimilate all people to follow the holy middlemen in your local areas under the direction of the beloved Brethren & the super sanctimonious prophets/seers/revelators of which we have 13 right now.

Simply put - Utah must be way off the charts in high intelligence thanks to Priesthood power and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

And if we go any further you'll find Africa near the bottom which is great propaganda for bigots.

I find it scary many hover around the 100 mark. Below a hundred and you're not very bright.

The trouble with East Asia though is that they prize blind devotion to the company. They are extremely conformist countries, even Japan which sometimes pretends otherwise. South Korea, Japan and Singapore practically function as one party states despite other parties being allowed.