what about those in Africa, South America and other impoverished places that dont have public schools?

 

I highly doubt stupidity is a truly genetic problem, if it is in any way, find me some substance behind it to back up this truly novel thesis of yours. I'm sure someone of vast intelligence like yourself has done an indepth study that us simple folk can read in an attempt to eradicate our own level of stupidity.

740581[/snapback]

The average IQ is 100. QED

what about those in Africa, South America and other impoverished places that dont have public schools?

 

I highly doubt stupidity is a truly genetic problem, if it is in any way, find me some substance behind it to back up this truly novel thesis of yours. I'm sure someone of vast intelligence like yourself has done an indepth study that us simple folk can read in an attempt to eradicate our own level of stupidity.

740581[/snapback]

The average IQ is 100. QED

740587[/snapback]

 

 

source?

what about those in Africa, South America and other impoverished places that dont have public schools?

 

I highly doubt stupidity is a truly genetic problem, if it is in any way, find me some substance behind it to back up this truly novel thesis of yours. I'm sure someone of vast intelligence like yourself has done an indepth study that us simple folk can read in an attempt to eradicate our own level of stupidity.

740581[/snapback]

The average IQ is 100. QED

740587[/snapback]

source?

740589[/snapback]

Probably himself....

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm

 

Check this out, take from it what you will.

So it would appear I'm not the only one who thinks stupidity is a problem.

 

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/index.html

My book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (co-author Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Helsinki) considers the problem of national differences in wealth and economic growth. Economists and other social scientists have been trying to solve the problem of why some nations are so rich and others so poor since Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (1776). We argue that an important but hitherto unrecognised factor is the IQs of the populations. We give measures and estimates of average IQs in the world's 185 nations and show that national IQs are strongly related to national incomes and rates of economic growth. The principal reason for this is that nations whose populations have high IQs can produce goods and services that command high values in international markets. See below for more details of this argument and on the IQs of every nation in the world.

So it would appear I'm not the only one who thinks stupidity is a problem.

 

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/index.html

My book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (co-author Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Helsinki) considers the problem of national differences in wealth and economic growth. Economists and other social scientists have been trying to solve the problem of why some nations are so rich and others so poor since Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (1776). We argue that an important but hitherto unrecognised factor is the IQs of the populations. We give measures and estimates of average IQs in the world's 185 nations and show that national IQs are strongly related to national incomes and rates of economic growth. The principal reason for this is that nations whose populations have high IQs can produce goods and services that command high values in international markets. See below for more details of this argument and on the IQs of every nation in the world.

 

740596[/snapback]

 

Well since you want to use this as a source why not be completely accurate as to what this authour found:

 

Country IQ estimate

Hong Kong (China) 107

South Korea 106

Japan 105

Taiwan (ROC) 104

Singapore 104

Austria 102

Germany 102

Italy 102

Netherlands 102

Sweden 101

Switzerland 101

Belgium 100

China (PRC) 100

New Zealand 100

United Kingdom 100

Hungary 99

Poland 99

Spain 99

Australia 98

Denmark 98

France 98

Norway 98

United States 98

Canada 97

Czech Republic 97

Finland 97

Argentina 96

Russia 96

Slovakia 96

Uruguay 96

Portugal 95

Slovenia 95

Israel 94

Romania 94

Bulgaria 93

Ireland 93

Greece 92

Malaysia 92

Thailand 91

Croatia 90

Peru 90

Turkey 90

Colombia 89

Indonesia 89

Suriname 89

Colombia 88

Brazil 87

Iraq 87

Mexico 87

Samoa 87

Tonga 87

Lebanon 86

Philippines 86

Cuba 85

Morocco 85

Fiji 84

Iran 84

Marshall Islands 84

Puerto Rico 84

Egypt 83

India 81

Ecuador 80

Guatemala 79

Barbados 78

Nepal 78

Qatar 78

Zambia 77

Congo-Brazzaville 73

Uganda 73

Jamaica 72

Kenya 72

South Africa 72

Sudan 72

Tanzania 72

Ghana 71

Nigeria 67

Zimbabwe 66

Congo-Kinshasa 65

Sierra Leone 64

Ethiopia 63

Equatorial Guinea 59

source?

 

http://www.mensa.org.uk/mensa/iqlevels.html

 

There are many standard IQ tests in use around the world. On most tests, average IQ is 100, but some tests give different numerical values to the level required for entry into Mensa, in the same way that the same temperature is expressed by different numerical values on the Fahrenheit and Celsius scale

Well since you want to use this as a source why not be completely accurate as to what this authour found:

 

You used him as a source originally.

 

Why did you omit the section I quoted?

 

IMO, duplicating the contents of web sites in message board posts is pretty damn STUPID, when a link will do.

 

As the profs say - the rest is an excercise for the student.

source?

 

http://www.mensa.org.uk/mensa/iqlevels.html

 

There are many standard IQ tests in use around the world. On most tests, average IQ is 100, but some tests give different numerical values to the level required for entry into Mensa, in the same way that the same temperature is expressed by different numerical values on the Fahrenheit and Celsius scale

 

740599[/snapback]

 

I think his question (which YOU omiited)was where is your proof that those nations that do not have a public school system of having an average IQ of 100. Looking at the book you wanted to use as a source... well they didn't find anything to help that case.

Well since you want to use this as a source why not be completely accurate as to what this authour found:

 

You used him as a source originally.

 

Why did you omit the section I quoted?

 

IMO, duplicating the contents of web sites in message board posts is pretty damn STUPID, when a link will do.

 

As the profs say - the rest is an excercise for the student.

740601[/snapback]

 

I didn't omit anything of yours.

 

And I said make of it what you will, I never said I stood by that, but since you are using him as a source, I will too.

 

Show me on there where nations without public schools are helped by that fact.

I think his question was where is your proof that those nations that do not have a public school system of having an average IQ of 100. Looking at the book you wanted to use as a sourse... well they didn't find anything to help that case.

 

I made no claims about nations, poverty, etc.

 

Lynn seems to attribute their lower average scores to nutritional/developmental deficiency, which I would tend to agree with.

 

If you DON'T agree with such environmental factors as being causal, then you're subscribing to the racist "bell curve" theory position.

 

Are you taking the racist position here?

I think his question was where is your proof that those nations that do not have a public school system of having an average IQ of 100. Looking at the book you wanted to use as a sourse... well they didn't find anything to help that case.

 

I made no claims about nations, poverty, etc.

 

Lynn seems to attribute their lower average scores to nutritional/developmental deficiency, which I would tend to agree with.

 

If you DON'T agree with such environmental factors as being causal, then you're subscribing to the racist "bell curve" theory position.

 

Are you taking the racist position here?

740605[/snapback]

 

 

 

I thought it was genetic?

I thought it was genetic?

 

 

Obviously environmental/nutritional/developmental factors can override this. Lock some kid in a dark closet, sensory deprive him, feed him only twinkies through a hole in the door for 18 years and I'm betting he won't score very well even if he was a gene for gene clone of someone with a 160 IQ.

 

To a lesser degree, this IS exactly what happens in a lot of 3rd world nations, so its not suprising they score lower.

 

That's not a statement about the genetic intelligence potential of those people at conception though. Its a statement about how their potential has been wasted and crippled through environmental/developmental neglect.

 

The same sort of mental degradation can be seen in children born to substance addicted mothers. They may have had genius IQ genes, but their brain development is impaired by environmental factors.

I think his question was where is your proof that those nations that do not have a public school system of having an average IQ of 100. Looking at the book you wanted to use as a sourse... well they didn't find anything to help that case.

 

I made no claims about nations, poverty, etc.

 

Lynn seems to attribute their lower average scores to nutritional/developmental deficiency, which I would tend to agree with.

 

If you DON'T agree with such environmental factors as being causal, then you're subscribing to the racist "bell curve" theory position.

 

Are you taking the racist position here?

740605[/snapback]

 

 

 

I thought it was genetic?

740608[/snapback]

 

Thats what I thought too.

 

 

 

 

....

 

Would you attribute the stupidity to crappy education systems, or just lack of education in general?

740515[/snapback]

Genetics.

...

740559[/snapback]

 

Obviously environmental/nutritional/developmental factors can override this.

 

You like to pick and choose as you go along. It must be nice to have an opinion and values that move the way the wind blows.

PP why don't you go ejaculate on some ticket contest contestants or something. There's a real discussion going on here and your juvenile nonsense isn't adding value.

Genetics.... oh umm and this other stuff.....

 

 

 

Oh yeah this stuff too!!!

 

 

Oh and I also ment to say this!

 

Oh of course I meant to say this!

 

Its just so cute.

PP why don't you go ejaculate on some ticket contest contestants or something. There's a real discussion going on here and your juvenile nonsense isn't adding value.

740613[/snapback]

 

You're using the "source" as you put it that I provided as your backing... so I added your infortmation for you.

 

 

 

Its okay to be Tony, I won't judge you, or tell other people how to, because they already see you for what you are.

 

So why are you worrying about this stuff anyway Tony? Isn't foolish to worry about this since you can't control it? At least that is what you have said before. Are you back tracking again? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

So why are you worrying about this stuff anyway Tony?

 

A: The man asked an apparently serious reasonable question.

So why are you worrying about this stuff anyway Tony?

 

A: The man asked an apparently serious reasonable question.

740617[/snapback]

 

Oh but see he didn't need you. I provided him with the proper information since you used it too and called it a source. So run along here, let the adults talk, I don't need a parrot.

Oh but see he didn't need you.

 

But he does need your personal vendetta here? I see. :lol

Oh but see he didn't need you.

 

But he does need your personal vendetta here? I see. :lol

740619[/snapback]

 

I have no problem.

 

...

a link will do.

 

As the profs say - the rest is an excercise for the student.

740601[/snapback]

 

I posted the link and that should be that, at least from your end, you said it yourself. Unless you don't think you should listen to your own advice, and if you don't listen to yourself I don't see why others should, or why you could possibly think you have something worthwhile to say.

I posted the link and that should be that

 

You posted a link to a bunch of raw data - which was relatively useless in isolation.

 

I posted the link to the first page on the guy's site which provided some context and evaluation of that data.

 

Which provided more value to this discussion?

 

Its apparent to me at this point there is indeed a worldwide intelligence problem.

 

Its also apparent to me that it is a tractable solvable problem if the prof's conclusions about nutrition and developmental issues are correct.

 

That being said, if we solve this non-developed country intelligence issue by flattening the nutrition/developmental problems, we are STILL left with the fact that now those countries (and everyone else) will still be stuck with an average humanity IQ in the 100 range like the US/Japan/Germany, etc are today.

 

As a society we muddle because as a society that's what average people do - they muddle through life.

Not that I agree with this, but that list has asian nations leading i naverage IQ, so it is not illogical to make a race issue out of intelligence. There is no proof that intelligence is nurture alone, because like everyhting else intelligence is a matter of nature and nurture. Obviuosly its genetic, if not everyone of the same age group that goes to the same school would be equally intelligent and that isnt the case. Its a mix of both, and some people who have amost no education have higher IQs than people who have a higher degree of education. Like always this thread has become back and forth fighting b/c of personal rivalries.

A couple things regarding IQ:

 

1) Yes, IQ tests are standardized such that the mean is 100. In fact, by definition, your typical IQ test should be standardized around a mean of 100 for the population it's intended to test.

 

2) It is absurdly pointless to compare the average IQ scores of different populations in different countries. IQ testing is so extraordinarily verbally-oriented and culturally-tilted that it's certifiably *impossible* to compare scores from an IQ test across populations in different countries and make any meaningful conclusion regarding intelligence. About all one can compare are the actual scores themselves, which mean nothing considering how different the populations are. I'd imagine the tests in this study are non-verbal for the most part (if they aren't, the author is a moron), but there's no such thing as an IQ test that isn't heavily culturally biased.

 

3) It is impossible for one country's average intelligence to be three standard deviations below another's, just as it's impossible for the average inhabitant of a country to be mentally retarded (something we define as IQ below 70). Again, all we're looking at are useless numbers.

 

The only thing the huge variance in those numbers tells us is how unreliable our IQ tests are for measuring the intelligence of people who are culturally different from us.

 

4) I'll give you a personal example. I was IQ tested for the gifted program when I was in the second grade. While I did well enough to pass, I remember having difficulty understanding and answering a number of the psychologist's questions. You see, as the kid of two immigrants, my English wasn't particularly good back then, and my command of everyday idioms and vocab was awful. Anyways, just a year ago I was IQ tested again, and my score had gone up 15 points (something that isn't supposed to happen even over the course of a lifetime). I'm not any smarter now; I just happen to fit the test's target population better.

Good post shaq.