Global differences in IQ - based on the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" by Dr. Richard Lynn [1394x634] (i.imgur.com)

94 ups - 88 downs = 6 votes

55 comments submitted at 16:48:55 on Nov 1, 2013 by PraetorianX

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • 20 Points
  • 16:49:04, 1 November

First of all: This is a controversial map about about a very controlversial subject. People will always have strong feelings about the implications of the research that is the basis of the statistics behind this kind of map, but I'm hoping we can have a rational discussion about facts instead of just downvoting on gut feeling.

That being said, I'm 90% sure this post will be downvoted into oblivion, because it's not politically correct.

This map is the result of research done on the basis of IQ testing around the world from Dr. Richard Lynn, who has written several very interesting books on the subject. He finds that IQ is highly correlated with GDP per capita, literacy rate, life expectancy, infant mortality, GINI index, HDI, poverty, democratization and many other things.

For 71 nations, IQ testing was available. For the other nations, IQ has been estimated by averaging the IQ of neighbouring nations.

The books have been the subject of heated discussion. I will give you two of the most common criticisms of Dr. Lynn's research, and his replies:

  • The research is based on a small sample size - This is true, in many cases the data point for a country is based upon a few dozen people, but Lynn argues that this is irrelevant because many nearby important data points are based on huge sample sizes. And the focus of data is the regional differences in IQ - not the exact values of single data points. The total amount of test-takers in sub-saharan Africa was over 37 000 - that is definitely a big enough sample size to draw conclusions from.

  • The IQ test itself it biased towards Europeans/Western civilization - This is a common argument, but the IQ tests used are non-verbal and no language or cultural skills are needed. It is a simple series of cognitive tests often based on pattern recognition. Furthermore, the argument of test bias has been thouroughly disproven. A 1996 report by the American Psychological Association states that controlled studies show that differences in mean IQ scores were not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raceandintelligence#Test_bias

I could continue this post ad infinitum, but since I will probably be downvoted anyway, I will end it soon. If you are interested in further reading, I can recommend you read the Wikipedia articles about Dr. Richard Lynn's books:

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

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

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

I can also recommend reading the books themselves, as they are extremely interesting. Coupld with the documentary Guns, Germs & Steel they provide great insight into why the world looks like it does today.

Here is another article that takes up many of the criticisms of the research that I did not have time to mention:

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

If you read this far, I hope you were able to contain your anger at the notion that challenges one of the pillars of modern, humanist philosophy - that all men are created equal - and actually look at the science in an objective manner. I'm hoping that we can have a rational discussion about the points I bring up in this post instead of just downvoting out of spite.

If you read this far, I also assume you are mildly curious as to why sub-saharan Africans display such different results on IQ tests than non-Africans, and there is actually a very interesting explanation to this that we had no idea about just 5 years ago. Because why would Africans be so different - we are all homo sapiens, right?

Actually, not exactly. All non-Africans on earth are actually hybrids between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. Non-Africans actually have between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA.

This might not sound like a lot, but it's huge. Consider that we share 98% of our genome with the chimpanzee. Homo neanderthalensis had very large brains and were better at vision & visual analysis, although they had slight difficulties with speech and running (and some say, social networking), which it why they were outcompeted by Homo sapiens - at least that's what we thought previously. In fact, they were absorbed into the population of Homo sapiens. But this was after the great migration from Africa 125 000 years ago, and the Neanderthal DNA was never integrated into the African genome.

This was revealed when the Neanderthal Genome Project was completed in May, 2010.

Homo neanderthalensis had an average brain size of 1 450 cc (cubic centimeters) ranging up to 1 750 cc. The average modern Homo sapiens brain size today is 1 330 cc.

For further reading I recommend this link:

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

  • [-]
  • nqn
  • 15 Points
  • 21:29:13, 1 November

> I hope you were able to contain your anger at the notion that challenges one of the pillars of modern, humanist philosophy - that all men are created equal -

Who said men were created equal? The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 says: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights". It doesn't say that men are created equal or are physically equal, it says that they are equal when it comes to freedoms and rights. It means one man who is fat and smart has got the same rights and freedoms as someone who is skinny and dumb. Whatever you can find on IQ, it doesn't challenge that humanist pillar one bit.

  • [-]
  • Return_of_the_Native
  • -1 Points
  • 01:56:59, 2 November

I think the pillar that this map would seem to challenge is less that men are equal on an individual basis (I think most would agree that intelligence, like most variables in a population, tends towards a bell curve) but that the bell curve, the average, of intelligence is similar in all populations.

  • [-]
  • nqn
  • 3 Points
  • 08:28:07, 2 November

Same question: who said that? Who is the philosopher who argued that? Where is that idea in our constitutions? In 1789, it is all about abolishing privileges by making anyone politically equal. The only physical/natural thing that humanists of that time assumed is that anyone can use its reason and think by himself. If tomorrow you prove that native americans can't think or reason by themselves, that would be really problematic and that would shake our humanist foundations. But that it is not likely at all, the only known cases meeting these conditions are pathological ones.

  • [-]
  • HerpDerpDrone
  • 31 Points
  • 17:46:07, 1 November

Brain size is not a good indicator of intelligence, otherwise we would all be slaves to our whale overlords.

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • 1 Points
  • 17:47:59, 1 November

Research actually suggests that brain size is an indicator of intelligence within species - but not between species.

  • [-]
  • M_gro
  • 10 Points
  • 21:29:05, 1 November

The Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do...

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • 11 Points
  • 21:39:27, 1 November

Yes, they did. It is likely that they were highly intelligent.

They were also extremely strong.

Unfortunately - for them - they also had a pelvic bone structure that made it hard (if not impossible) for them to run efficiently, especially over long distances (something Homo sapiens is excellent at). They also had a larynx which made advanced speech impossible, which made communication and social interaction difficult.

Clearly, intelligence is not everything.

  • [-]
  • Vaeldr
  • 6 Points
  • 10:26:30, 2 November

>bone structure that made it hard (if not impossible) for them to run efficiently, especially over long distances

Well that explains the running finals, doesn't it?

  • [-]
  • M_gro
  • 5 Points
  • 16:17:11, 2 November

Spot on. The whole idea of intelligence is quite vague really. I've been to a one mensa meeting and that's enough for me. A whole bunch of people good at finding the patterns of circles, squares and triangles but not much more. As Hawking apparently said boasting about your IQ is as boasting about your penis size. Doesn't mean you're any good at anything though.

  • [-]
  • 1Ra
  • 14 Points
  • 20:44:47, 1 November

Thats because it matters more (brain mass)/(body mass) because the brain needs to process information from the entire body.

On this scale, humans are #2, behind the holy dolphin overlords.

  • [-]
  • Troiseme
  • 12 Points
  • 00:18:38, 2 November

And thanks for all the fish.

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • 8 Points
  • 20:49:25, 1 November

Yes, exactly. Good point. It's the ratio that's important.

Doplhins would probably keep us in little cages - if they had opposable thumbs, or some other effective way of manipulating their environment.

  • [-]
  • watabit
  • 1 Points
  • 07:01:32, 3 November

When "brain size" is mentioned, it is commonly understood to mean a ratio of brain size to body weight...

  • [-]
  • aarkerio
  • 20 Points
  • 04:00:38, 2 November

You are mixing things and making a mess here, all your comment has the unveiled objective to "probe" that there is a scientific base to be racist. But you are very far away from that. And I don't say this because a want to sound liberal or wanna be "humanist". I say it in the mos strict scientific terms.

Your assertion:

"The IQ test itself it biased towards Europeans/Western civilization - This is a common argument, but the IQ tests used are non-verbal and no language or cultural skills are needed. "

is incredible naïve. Is impossible to escape to the cultural world not even a second, our conscience was build through the language, the language is at the beginning, (in children under one year), an external tool, just compressed air beating in the ear and linked to the objects, but after some time the words shape the neurological and psychological concepts that build the human mind, not only our thoughts but the perception itself. Since the moment you open your eyes in the morning until you put your head on the pillow at night and even in your dreams you are caged (for good or bad) in a "cultural stream" that nobody can escape. The pace you walk, the test of your meals, the kind of sex you want and with who you want it, your jealousy, generosity and greed or lack of jealousy, generosity and greed, all is part of your cultural heritage. Say, "the IQ tests used are non-verbal and no language or cultural skills are needed" is absurd. The IQ is not a biological process but a historic-cultural one. If you could travel in time ten thousand years ago and take a neolithic baby and return with him to be raised by a rich family in New York, nobody will notice the difference, that baby would grow up watching Sponge Bob, clicking on Facebook and going to college. But if we could test neolithic people, the results would show a retard IQ level according to modern standards. What people consider "smart" or "dumb" change all the time. The guy who discovered the multiplication tables was the Einstein of his time, but now everybody expect that little kids understand them. That raise on IQ can not be in the DNA because is too close: a couple thousand of years.

Same DNA but very different IQ and different IQ levels that can not have biological roots, how so?

But you have another problems, you theory that IQ depends of "racial DNA" (if such thing exist) doesn't explain the rise and fails of so many different groups through history. Why the IQ inside the same group changes in history?, the Greeks and Egyptians from the IV A.D were by far more intelligent than their contemporary British or Germans. Little changes in DNA takes at least 25,000 years but in the last two thousand years we are seeing tremendous variations of IQ through the history. The muslims of the IX century considered must of Europe as a shithole and Europeans as retards. Chinese saw Japaneses ans Koreans as inferiors for many centuries until Japan and Korea copied the Western education model.

If the IQ is in the DNA as you say, and the current GDP-per capita-IQ shows that biological link, the history of the humankind should be only one: Europe must have conquered the world five thousand years ago and keep it like that uninterruptedly until now. But nothing like that happened, from the last three thousand years Asia has been the economic engine, was until 1810 when Europe overtakes Asian economy but now again Asia economy is bigger that all combined Western economies. The top five IQ countries in the world are: Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore but in 1900, with the exception of Japan, all those countries had indeed low IQ. In the last century the IQ levels in Latin America have raised dramatically. Blacks in Netherlands have higher IQ than many blond blue-eyes east Europeans. Compared with the Mexicans from the 1900 year, current Mexicans are pure geniuses.

If the IQ is embedded in the genes how can you explain all this changes on IQ levels in History and individually?

What Richard Lynn has made is something indeed amazing, he just proved that some kind of education (formal and informal) creates a different kind of psychological structures and besides that some countries have more that that kind of education than others, but he never proved a biological link between race and IQ. Europe have the merit to be the first to develop a rational-scientific education, but everywhere that education model is applied always the same happen: high birth rate disappears, wealth and life expectancy increase, the notion of the individual value appears strongly, people is more aware of the future and the environment.

That always happen, the education change the brain connections, the conceptual framework through we build our behavior becomes more abstract, time broader and powerful. Human beings are special because we are the only animal who have abandoned the evolution based in biochemistry by a new historic-cultural evolution. Of course this change in not clean: seek of status, power, security and sex have biological roots, but even those powerful drives are wrapped and shaped under cultural values.

  • [-]
  • fernando-poo
  • 5 Points
  • 10:45:14, 2 November

Not sure why you were downvoted. This is a great comment that raises some serious questions about the OP's assertions. I agree, it makes much more sense that IQ would be correlated with societal development rather than strictly with race or ethnicity.

  • [-]
  • Vorpal_Hammer
  • 5 Points
  • 16:24:26, 2 November

He's being downvoted because Reddit loves racism and hates being called out on it.

Look at OP's post history. He's all about how great white people are, and how terrible everyone else is. Just downvote his bullshit and move on. He's gotta be a Stormfront guy with his racist copypasta ready to go.

  • [-]
  • totooto
  • 0 Points
  • 20:55:27, 2 November

> He's all about how great white people are, and how terrible everyone else is.

And that's why he's posting a map where white people aren't on the top?

  • [-]
  • sihtydaernacuoytihsy
  • 6 Points
  • 17:08:07, 1 November

So is there any evidence that IQ-test-results are caused by the genetic factors you mention? There are lots of correlations between skin color, poverty, and the results of certain tests, but I didn't see anywhere an express claim about causation.

A few other questions:

  • Why do you bring up skull size?

  • What does Jared Diamond have to do with the results here?

  • Does the testing try to isolate factors (poverty, etc) within a single genetic population?

  • Do we have any twins studies on this?

  • Once you control for those factors, is there an additional correlation with "percent genetically related to Neanderthals"?

  • What does it mean to be 4% Neanderthal but 98% related to a chimpanzee?

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • 4 Points
  • 17:43:32, 1 November

• Why do you bring up skull size?

We are not really talking about skull size. We are talking about internal cranial volume, which in essence correlates with brain size, which in turn correlates with the number of cortical neurons in your brain.

Average brain size for Asians: 1 364 cc (over 1 400 cc in Korea & Japan)

Average brain size for Europeans: 1 347 cc

Average brain size for Africans: 1 267 cc

There is tons of research about this and the trends are clear, but here is the source:

Race, Evolution and Behaviour by Professor J. Philippe Rushton, 1995 http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

• What does Jared Diamond have to do with the results here?

Nothing, really. My point is that to understand the world, you can't go on IQ alone. After all, environment and circumstance play a role. Guns, Germs & Steel gives a good account of these factors in relation to why the world looks like it does.

• Does the testing try to isolate factors (poverty, etc) within a single genetic population?

Yes, Lynn has compensated and accounted for all these factors - and many more, and their effects on the results of the IQ test of a population. The links in the OP, and the books, contain more information about this.

The wikipedia article on "Race and intelligence", for example, brings up the effects of various parameters on intelligence - health & nutrition, socioeconomic environment and education, just to name a few. However, Lynn clearly shows that even when fully compensating for these factors, the trends remain.

In the example of education, health & nutrition, there are many studies comparing native Africans to African-Americans of the same heritage - African-Americans who are in good health, not malnourished, and who attend good schools all around the US. They perform slightly better than their native African counterparts, but there is still a major difference when compared to European-Americans. This clearly points to genetics, not environment, being the greater factor in the equation.

• Do we have any twins studies on this?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Twins of different races?

• Once you control for those factors, is there an additional correlation with "percent genetically related to Neanderthals"?

No one has done research of this kind yet, though it would be very interesting to see the results. Keep in mind, the Neanderthal Genome Project was completed as recently as 2010.

• What does it mean to be 4% Neanderthal but 98% related to a chimpanzee?

Well, the latest research suggests we are more like 94% chimpanzee than 98%, but I was trying to prove a point that 1-2% base pair difference in the genome can make a huge difference between and within species. But being 94% similar to chimpanzees can make it easier to understand how we can also be 1-4% neanderthal.

If you want to know more, you can just google Neanderthal Research Project. But always look when the article was written - the final results in 2010 showed a much stronger presence of the Neanderthal genome both in the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of modern non-African humans than the preliminary findings of the study suggested.

  • [-]
  • Spoonfeedme
  • 2 Points
  • 18:20:29, 2 November

What are you sources for this average brain size? I would imagine even if it is true, nutrition plays a greater component than genetics (studies in rats suggest drops of 10-15% in brain size if malnourished during early developmental stages).

>Yes, Lynn has compensated and accounted for all these factors - and many more, and their effects on the results of the IQ test of a population. The links in the OP, and the books, contain more information about this.

Poorly, according to most of his peers. His methodology is suspect, and his misrepresentation of others' research is appalling.

Quite frankly, he is obviously a racist. Which doesn't necessarily make his findings false, but certainly raises questions.

>In the example of education, health & nutrition, there are many studies comparing native Africans to African-Americans of the same heritage - African-Americans who are in good health, not malnourished, and who attend good schools all around the US. They perform slightly better than their native African counterparts, but there is still a major difference when compared to European-Americans. This clearly points to genetics, not environment, being the greater factor in the equation.

"Clearly"? What horse shit. Intelligence is far too complex for that. Indeed, genetic studies suggest that intelligence is far less heridtary than you might think. The only clear causal factor that has been clearly proven to have a large impact on intelligence, if all other factors are equal, is wealth.

  • [-]
  • SlasherX
  • 1 Points
  • 06:59:54, 2 November

Isn't there like, a direct correlation between famine and skull size?

  • [-]
  • botttled_water
  • 3 Points
  • 12:48:57, 2 November

It's not too much to say that recent human evolution may have selected for smaller brain sizes. If you live in an area with little food it might be beneficial to cut down on your huge brain because the brain uses something like 25% of our energy intake. So places like Africa where food was scarce may have faced a small shrinkage in brain sizes. Whether this leads to less intelligence is debatable, since some will say 'well, the brains became more efficient'. I tend to side on the side that perhaps it did have a little effect on cognitive performance.

It's weird culturally we will say a big brain causes intelligence (in cartoons, films, etc) but when it comes to scientific things like this people are all torn apart and saying well big brains don't cause intelligence. The fact is if a human brain shrunk to 500cc we would definitely be morons, and I'm sure any decrease has a small effect on how we think.

This kind of thinking is dangerously close to eugenics grounds though, and that's why it's pretty controversial.

This debate is further confused by recent food scarcity. The brain will not reach its full size capacity if the person with that brain does not eat properly. In places like Africa where food may be scarce the brain may never reach its full size, and this could skew results coming from Africa. I think a better study would look at Africans in developed countries (I haven't read the study).

I understand this is controversial but it's important to have an open mind. Just because you feel something is right doesn't make it right, and the idea that 'all men are equal' is simply not right and we all know it. It's also important to note that this is the average skull size, so many africans will be above and below the average. The same is true with europeans and asians.

  • [-]
  • Return_of_the_Native
  • 5 Points
  • 01:52:48, 2 November

>The IQ test itself it biased towards Europeans/Western civilization - This is a common argument, but the IQ tests used are non-verbal and no language or cultural skills are needed. It is a simple series of cognitive tests often based on pattern recognition.

Perhaps it goes deeper than simple linguistic barriers. It's easy to believe that what we think of as modern rationality, as scientific, logic-based modes of thought are simply the 'correct' way of thinking and somehow inherent in the universe. Whether or not that's true, the fact is that this way of thinking is a specifically western rationality. No cultural skills are needed? Cultural differences can be more than 'what we think'; they can be 'how we think' at the most fundamental level. The IQ test was an attempt at being universal, but it can't get away from the fact that it is borne out of a westernized philosophy of thought.

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • 2 Points
  • 04:19:27, 2 November

Two problems with what you are saying:

  1. If simple, non-verbal IQ tests only are a measure of proficiency in specifically western rationality - which you are implying - that doesn't explain why Chinese farmers and poor, rural Koreans score so extremely high on these tests. They don't speak English, they have no contact with the western education system - yet the East Asians still outperform rich, educated westerners - at their own test.

  2. Lynn finds that IQ - as measured in these test - is very strongly correlated with GDP per capita, literacy rate, life expectancy, infant mortality, GINI index, HDI, poverty, democratization and many other things. If this type of IQ - borne out of a westernized philosophy of thought - was the product of some kind of cultural bias, why would it correlate with these clearly universal parameters to such a degree? Or are you saying that infant mortality, life expectancy and GDP per capita also are culturally biased concepts?

  • [-]
  • fernando-poo
  • 1 Points
  • 10:34:16, 2 November

> Lynn finds that IQ - as measured in these test - is very strongly correlated with GDP per capita, literacy rate, life expectancy, infant mortality, GINI index, HDI, poverty, democratization and many other things.

This is interesting, but it kind of begs the question of which came first. Couldn't it simply be the case that prosperity is one of the factors that produces people who do well on an IQ test?

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • -2 Points
  • 10:51:31, 2 November

It doesn't seem to be that way. In China, rural farmers score as highly on IQ tests as their rich, urban counterparts. And cross-studies of adopted African-Americans shows that even when education, health, prosperity and other socioeconomic factors are taken out of the equation - the IQ gap still remains.

  • [-]
  • fernando-poo
  • 4 Points
  • 11:14:59, 2 November

Doesn't this kind of contradict your second assertion above though — that IQ is "very strongly correlated with GDP per capita, literacy rate, life expectancy, infant mortality, GINI index, HDI, poverty, democratization and many other things"?

After all, despite its recent advances China does not score highly when it comes to these metrics and is not at all democratic. And then there's the case of North Korea to consider...

Also, how to explain the fact that human development and major achievements throughout history have taken place in so many different regions of the world? There's a much longer comment below that talks about this, but at one point Egypt was the center of the world, as was Greece — now both of them are in a state of economic collapse. The Muslim world once outpaced Europe in terms of science and technological achievement. If an IQ test was administered to an Egyptian pharoah, a Muslim scientist from the Islamic Golden Age, a classical Greek philosopher, a North Korean peasant, and a European serf from the Dark Ages, what results would you expect? And would they really say anything meaningful about "intelligence" and human potential?

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • -1 Points
  • 11:41:37, 2 November

No, there is no contradiction there. A correlation is never absolute. And China is somewhat of a statistical outlier in this context - high IQ but low GDP per capita. This is probably because communism kept them back for over 50 years. Compare to Taiwan - both China and Taiwan are ethnically Han chinese, so genetically there is no real difference on a population level. Yet, Taiwan as a country scores highly in all these metrics, because they weren't held back for decades by the disastrous politics of Mao Tse Tung - like mainland China was.

So there is a clear correlation between these metrics and IQ, but that doesn't mean IQ is the only factor in the equation. Outliers like China and North Korea clearly show that there are other factors at play when it comes to the development of a country than just the average IQ levels of the population.

Your second question is very interesting, but also very hypothetical. Any answer I could give you would just be wild speculation, since we cannot IQ test people who have been dead for 2 000 years. Maybe you should e-mail your question to Dr. Richard Lynn? I'm sure he would have some really interesting theories on the subject.

[email protected]

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

  • [-]
  • fernando-poo
  • 3 Points
  • 12:22:25, 2 November

I still think it's much more nebulous than the people behind this study make it out to be. Notice how the evaluation criteria themselves are basically derived from a Western-centric viewpoint. For instance the assumption that democracy and high GDP per capita are "advances" that must be correlated with high intelligence.

If democracy and high IQ are correlated, then it's not really a sufficient explanation to say that the Chinese were simply held back because of Communism. In fact, the Chinese themselves embraced and implemented communism, as did the high-IQ Russians and North Koreans. And other high-IQ societies such as Japan basically had democracy forced on them at the point of a gun.

So I think there is definitely an element of cultural bias in terms of how these studies are evaluated. It's just really difficult for anyone (even those of us with high IQs, I can say that confidently as an ethnic Chinese person:) to think outside of the cultural paradigm in which we exist. Also, let's not overrate the conclusiveness of their evidence. If you read more closely, you'll find they actually didn't test a single person in North Korea — they simply inferred that North Koreans had high IQs because Chinese and South Koreans do.

Anyway, interesting discussion. I'll leave you with an additional example: men vs. women. For a long time, women routinely scored below men on the IQ test, and it might have been reasonable to conclude from this that women were simply intellectually inferior in some way. However, with women realizing equality and becoming more integrated into the workforce, they have now equaled and even surpassed men on average - something I suspect has rarely if ever happened throughout history.

  • [-]
  • PraetorianX
  • 0 Points
  • 13:07:34, 2 November

I agree with you that democratization as a metric for progress is doubtful at best - and I would agree with you that it is indeed a criterium derived from a Western-centric viewpoint. That being said, Lynn doesn't actually state - or even imply - that democracy is a metric for progress. He merely shows that there is a statistical correlation between democracy and average population IQ.

You are also correct that the North Korean figures are based on South Korean IQ testing. Lynn's rationale for this is that the North-South division of Korea occured only 60 years ago, and that is nowhere near enough time for any significant genetic differences to appear based on selection pressure. And, as Lynn clearly shows, genetics is the main factor of importance here.

But forget about democracy for a second. Life expectancy, child mortality rate, GDP per capita, literacy rate - these are not culturally biased concepts! I think we can both agree that they are universal metrics of progress rather than arbitratry metrics skewed towards the Western way of life - as one can argue that democratization is.

And life expectancy, child mortality, GDP per capita & literacy all strongly correlate with average population IQ.

  • [-]
  • Return_of_the_Native
  • 2 Points
  • 13:07:09, 2 November

>And China is somewhat of a statistical outlier in this context

China has a population of 1.3 billion, around a fifth of the global population. It cannot be considered an 'outlier' when it has such an enormous population.

  • [-]
  • CatMonkeyMillionaire
  • 0 Points
  • 20:06:04, 3 November

So youre saying non-western people dont need logic? That seems pretty racist...

  • [-]
  • johnq-pubic
  • 2 Points
  • 21:50:50, 3 November

Great follow up. I have heard all the same ideas about human DNA history from other sources.

This is off topic, but I find it fascinating that we have more DNA in common with a chimpzee,vs a down syndrome human.

  • [-]
  • mucco
  • 3 Points
  • 23:01:14, 1 November

Bringing up points about brain sizes and Neanderthals is a very elaborate way to put racism into a map whose simple explanation is that rich people train their brain more.

  • [-]
  • CFRProflcopter
  • 3 Points
  • 01:37:14, 2 November

This isn't really true though. Most of the studies have accounted for socio-economic differences. For instance, there have been studies in the US that look at adopted children of all races in the same social class. The racial differences in IQ still persist. If you look at wealthy African American families will great access to education, the racial IQ differences still persist.

At this point, it's well established science that there are statistical variances in IQ between racial populations. I say this being one of the most progressive people you will ever meet. However, one of the tenets of progressivism is to accept science, wherever it may lead us, and arm the people with this knowledge.

I actually think it's racist not to accept these facts about IQ and race. Our capitalist society is a semi-merritocracy, and IQ correlates with financial success. Thus certain racial populations will always be at an economic disadvantage compared to others. Is that fair? If not, how do you compensate? Is it possible to compensate for these disadvantages in a way that doesn't adversely effect those with the highest IQs (East Asians)? These questions need to be asked, but they will only be asked when we set aside political correctness.

  • [-]
  • Rekksu
  • -2 Points
  • 02:09:06, 2 November

> I actually think it's racist not to accept these facts about IQ and race.

lol

  • [-]
  • CFRProflcopter
  • 1 Points
  • 03:12:53, 2 November

If you're not actually going to dispute any of the science, then why post at all? By being intellectually dishonest, you're giving your argument no credence.

  • [-]
  • ZakTheSharkable
  • -2 Points
  • 00:30:41, 3 November

I dispute your science; if you can point me to a single reputable scientist who is generally well regarded amongst his/her peers and supports this link between IQ and race then maybe you'd have a point. But the fact is none do.

  • [-]
  • CFRProflcopter
  • 3 Points
  • 01:27:27, 3 November

>if you can point me to a single reputable scientist who is generally well regarded amongst his/her peers

  1. This is an intellectually dishonest debate tactic. You cannot disagree with a point just because the sources is biased. You're supposed to attack the content, not the source. As much as I hate Fox News, you can't refute a sources comment by saying "Fox News is biased." You have to read the content.

  2. There are literally dozens of well established scientists that have published on the subject of race and IQ.

Aurthur Jensen is probably the most well known scientist that took on this subject. He received lots of criticism, but if you've actually read his studies, they're quite convincing.

I'd also suggest you read this comment:

http://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1pp379/globaldifferencesiniqbasedonthebookiq_and/cd4iekh

  • [-]
  • Rekksu
  • -3 Points
  • 21:12:59, 1 November

> That being said, I'm 90% sure this post will be downvoted into oblivion, because it's not politically correct.

'not politically correct' is an interesting way of saying 'racist'

  • [-]
  • CFRProflcopter
  • 0 Points
  • 01:39:40, 2 November

Science cannot be racist, it can only be good science or poor science. If you have an issue with a scientific paper, you criticize certain aspects of the paper. You don't use intellectually dishonest arguments like ad hominem.

  • [-]
  • wetspoons
  • -1 Points
  • 21:53:24, 2 November

But what is considered good or bad science is indeed racist, as it's a rubric that must pass through the sieve of cultural bias. Science, in a very real way, is indeed racist simply because it is impossible to remove the human element from testing. The very choice of what experiment to run is subject to bias.

  • [-]
  • CFRProflcopter
  • 3 Points
  • 22:08:28, 2 November

Perhaps, but you have to ask the question "what is race?" It's not an easy question to answer. We no relatively little about genetics and the human brain. It may be that in 150 years when we have a better understanding of the brain, we realize that there are multiple sub-species.

It's a really complicated issue, but I don't think it's something we should avoid because of "racism." Knowledge should be sought, regardless of it's implications.

  • [-]
  • Spoonfeedme
  • -1 Points
  • 18:10:37, 2 November

You are missing the forest for the trees here. IQ has consistently been consistently linked to wealth and income. The explanation needn't be "We are genetically superior" which is not only going against modern philosophy and ethics, but also has no basis in science (and thus is hogwash). All you need to do is look at wealth. I guarantee you a poor person in China does worse than a rich person, and that a poor person in France does worse.

PS: Guns, Germs, and Steel is not good.