IQ, China, and the Wealth of Nations

‘Assuming a normal distribution, there are only about 10,000 people in the US who perform at +4SD and a similar number in Europe. So, this is quite a select population (roughly, the top few hundred high school seniors each year in the US). If you extrapolate the NE Asian numbers to the 1.3 billion population of China you get something like 300,000 individuals at this level, which is pretty overwhelming’. Asian-White IQ variance from PISA results. Steve Hsu.

 

Review: IQ and economic development, by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut; 2002. 298pp. $67.95, hardback. ISBN 0-275-97510-X

By taking estimates of IQ for almost every country in the world, and running these against per capita gross domestic product (GDP) data at various times since 1820. Lynn and Vanhanen show significant positive correlations both of absolute GDP per capita levels and of long-run rates of national economic growth against IQ. IQ is shown to be a powerful predictor of both these dependent variables, although not, of course, a monocausal explanation. By employing regression analysis, the authors isolate deviant data points and try to explain why the individual countries. They represent at these points in time deviated significantly from the expected trend-line values.

TOMBSTONE by Yang Jisheng. A Critical Review

The most exhaustive, authoritative study of the subject is IQ and Global Inequality. By Fong, Lynn, and Tatu Vanhanen which, like all comparative IQ studies, is controversial. Nevertheless, it remains the gold standard.

They conclude that what they call the ‘East  Asian cluster’ (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) has the highest mean IQ at 105, followed by Europeans at 100. In  appendix 1 the authors explain their confidence in publishing such controversial findings: ”We address the following questions. 

  1. So, In Chapter 1, we review the major theories of economic growth that have been developed since this problem was considered by Charles de Montesquieu and  dam Smith in the eighteenth century and introduce the 192 countries of this study. 
  2. But, In Chapter 2 we define and describe what is meant by intelligence. 
  3. So, In Chapter 3, we summarize work showing that intelligence is a determinant of incomes and related phenomena (educational attainment and socio-economic status) among individuals in a number of countries; this is the basis of our theory that the intelligence of national populations is likely to be a determinant of per capita incomes among nations. 
  4. Chapter 4 describes how we have collected and quantified the IQs of nations and presents new IQ data for a further 32 nations. This brings the total number of nations for which we have measured IQs to 113. In addition, national IQs are estimated for 79 other countries so that we have IQs for all countries with populations of more than 40,000. In 
  5. Chapter 5, five measures of the quality of human conditions and their composite index (QHC) are introduced as well as 12 alternative variables that measure human conditions from different perspectives. 
  6. In Chapter 6, the hypothesis on the positive relationship between national IQ and the quality of human conditions is tested by empirical evidence on PPP GNI (Gross National Income at Purchasing Power Parity) per capita in 2002, adult literacy rate in 2002, tertiary enrollment ratio, life expectancy at birth in 2002, and the level of democratization in 2002. 
  7. Chapter 7 focuses on the relationship between national IQ and the composite index of the quality of human conditions (QHC) The results are analysed at the level of single countries on the basis of regression analyses. The results are checked by exploring the impact of latitude and annual mean temperature on human conditions through national IQ. 
  8. Chapter 8 shows that national IQ is correlated also with many other variables that measure differences in human conditions from different perspectives. Twelve alternative variables are used in these analyses. 
  9. Chapter 9 discusses the contributions of genetic and environmental determinants to national differences. In intelligence and concludes that the racial identity of the population is the major factor. 
  10. Chapter 10 considers the causal interactions between our most important measures. 
  11. Chapter 11 (Criticisms and Rejoinders) discusses and responds to the criticisms made of our theory by reviewers. Finally, we summarize the results and conclusions of this study in Chapter 12 and discuss policy implications. Five appendices complement the text. 
  12. In  appendix 1, the calculation of national IQs for 113 countries is presented and documented. 
  13. appendix 2 includes documented empirical data on the adult literacy rate in 2002. The gross enrollment ratio at the tertiary level of education, PPP GNI per capita in U. S. dollars in 1002, and the life expectancy at birth in 2002 for the total group of 192 countries. 
  14. But, appendix 3 provides documented data on the measures of democracy. Of the calculated values of the Index of the Quality of Human Conditions (QHC), and of latitude and annual mean temperature. 
  15. But, appendix 4 includes residuals of regression analyses of the five components of QHC on national IQ for single countries in the group of 192 countries. 
  16. So, appendix 5 provides estimated data on per capita GDP derived from Maddison (2003) for 1500 and 2000 in a group of 109 countries.”

China’s Great Famine

  follow-up test of their hypothesis, National IQs Calculated and Validated for 108 Nations, supported their findings. Although, You can check IQ distributions on this IQ Percentile and Rarity Chart.

World IQ Map

Taking China’s 105 IQ, Physicist Steve Hsu explains why China has 330,000 Super Geniuses (while the West has fewer than 30,000): ” ssuming a normal distribution, there are only about 10,000 people in the U.S. who perform at +4SD and a similar number in Europe, so this is quite a select population (roughly, the top few hundred high school seniors each year in the U.S.). If you extrapolate the NE  Asian numbers to the 1.3 billion population of China you get something like 300,000 individuals at this level, which is pretty overwhelming.” But, This means that the U.S.  produces 9 standouts–children with IQs above 160–every year while China produces 270. 

Statistician Dimitriy V. Masterov explains Steve Hsu’s calculations: 

”Steve Hsu, above, is using the augmented 68–95–99.7 rule to calculate what fraction of the population lies within 4 standard deviations of the mean, assuming IQ has a normal distribution. 

”Given how these tests are constructed, the mean IQ is around 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Standard deviation is a standard measure of spread for data (denoted by the Greek letter σσ). If it is small, everyone’s score will be clustered tightly around 100. If it is large, scores will be more dispersed. Using the Wiki table linked above, we can see that about 0.999936657516334 of the population will have IQ between 100−4⋅15=4010041540 and 100+4⋅15=160100415160 (plus or minus 4 standard deviations from the mean). That leaves

1−0.999936657516334=0.0000633410.9999366575163340.00006334

with scores below 40 and above 160.

”We only care about geniuses, so that gets cut in half to 0.000031670.00003167 (since the distribution is assumed to symmetric). If the U.S. has a population of 322 million, that gives us  0.5⋅(1−0.999936657516334)⋅322,000,000

=10,1980.510.99993665751633432200000010198 geniuses.

”To get the Chinese numbers, he’s assuming that they have the same standard deviation. But a mean that is 0.50.5 standard deviations higher (so 107.5107.5). This is grounded in the PIS  tests results which are more of a scholastic achievement test rather than a test of IQ.  The assumption is that achievement score distribution looks like the IQ distribution. Therefore assuming this is the case, this means that to make it over 160, you only need (160-107.5)/15=3.5 standard deviations instead of 4. Using the 3.5 σσ row in the Wiki table, this gives

0.5⋅(1−0.999534741841929)⋅1,300,000,000=302,418 geniuses, which is fairly close to Steve Hsu’s estimate.”

The Flynn Effect

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day: 

  • When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results set to 100 and their standard deviation set to 15 or 16 IQ points. 
  • When IQ tests revised, they again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first.  gain, the average result is set to 100. 
  • However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores significantly above 100. 
  • Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. 
  • Although, For the Raven’s Progressive Matrices test, subjects born over a 100-year period were compared in Des Moines, Iowa, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. So, Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries. 
  • So, This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary.  
In a 2013 talk, Professor Flynn commented on his findings and the effect of  modern education’s development of abstract reasoning: 

My father born in 1885 and was mildly racially biased.  s an Irishman, he hated the English so much he didn’t have much emotion for anyone else. But he did have a sense that black people were inferior.  nd when we asked our parents and grandparents, ”How would you feel if tomorrow morning you woke up black?” they said that is the dumbest thing you’ve ever said. Who have you ever known who woke up in the morning–that turned black?

In other words, they fixed in the concrete mores and attitudes they had inherited. They would not take the hypothetical seriously, and without the hypothetical. It’s very difficult to get moral argument off the ground. You have to say, imagine you were in Iran, and imagine that your relatives all suffered from collateral damage even though they had done no wrong.

How would you feel about that?  nd if someone of the older generation says, well, our government takes care of us and it’s up to their government to take care of them, they’re just not willing to take the hypothetical seriously. Or take an Islamic father whose daughter raped, and he feels he’s honour-bound to kill her.

Well, he’s treating his mores as if they were sticks and stones and rocks. That he had inherited, and they’re unmovable in any way by logic. They’ve just inherited mores. 

Today we would say something like, well, imagine you knocked unconscious and sodomized. Would you deserve to killed?  And he would say, well that’s not in the Koran. That’s not one of the principles I’ve got. Well you, today, universalize your principles.

You state them as abstractions and you use logic on them. If you have a principle such as, people shouldn’t suffer unless they’re guilty of something. Then to exclude black people you’ve got to make exceptions, don’t you? You have to say, well, the blackness of skin, you couldn’t suffer just for that.

It must that blacks somehow tainted.  nd then we can bring empirical evidence to bear, can’t we, and say, well how can you consider all blacks tainted when St.  Augustine was black and Thomas Sowell is black.  nd you can get moral argument off the ground, then, because you’re not treating moral principles as concrete entities. You’re treating them as universals, to render consistent by logic. 

Now, this dramatic change was drawn to my attention through massive I.Q. gains over time, and these truly massive. That is, we don’t just get a few more questions right on I.Q. tests.

We get far more questions right on I.Q. tests than each succeeding generation back to the time that they were invented. Indeed, if you score the people a century ago against modern norms, they would have an average I.Q. of 70. If you score us against their norms, we would have an average I.Q. of 130. Now, this has raised all sorts of questions. Were our immediate ancestors on the verge of mental retardation? Because 70 is normally the score for mental retardation. Or are we on the verge of all being gifted? Because 130 is the cutting line for giftedness.

Now, not only do we have much more education, and much of that education is scientific, and you can’t do science without classifying the world. You can’t do science without proposing hypotheses. You can’t do science without making it logically consistent. 

On Famine and Measuring Famine Deaths

Analysis of Steve Hsu’s IQ statement: ‘Assuming a normal distribution. There are only about 10,000 people in the US who perform at +4SD and a similar number in Europe. So this is quite a select population (roughly, the top few hundred high school seniors each year in the US).

If you extrapolate the NE Asian numbers to the 1.3 billion population of China you get something like 300,000 individuals at this level. Which is pretty overwhelming’ Asian-White IQ variance from PISA results

22down voteaccepted Steve Hsu is using the augmented 68–95–99.7 rule to calculate what fraction of the population lies within 4 standard deviations of the mean, assuming IQ has a normal distribution.

Given how these tests are constructed, the mean IQ is around 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Standard deviation a standard measure of spread for data (denoted by the Greek letter σσ). If it is small, everyone’s score will be clustered tightly around 100100. If it is large, scores will be more dispersed.

Using the Wiki table linked above. We can see that about 0.999936657516334 of the population will have IQ between 100−4⋅15=4010041540. And 100+4⋅15=160100415160 (plus or minus 4 standard deviations from the mean). That leaves 

1−0.999936657516334=0.0000633410.9999366575163340.00006334

with scores below 40 and above 160. We only care about geniuses. So that gets cut in half to 0.000031670.00003167 (since the distribution assumed to be symmetric). If the US has a population of 322 million, that gives us 0.5⋅(1−0.999936657516334)⋅322,000,000=10,1980.510.99993665751633432200000010198 geniuses. 

So, To get the Chinese numbers, he’s assuming that they have the same standard deviation. But a mean that is 0.50.5 standard deviations higher (so 107.5107.5). This is grounded in the NE Asian PISA tests results. Which are more of a scholastic achievement test rather than a test of IQ. The two assumptions are that achievement score distribution looks like the IQ distribution and that the Chinese resemble NE Asians. 

Therefore, Assuming this is the case, this means that to make it over 160. So, You only need (160-107.5)/15=3.5 standard deviations instead of 4. Using the 3.5 σσ row in the Wiki table, this gives 

0.5⋅(1−0.999534741841929)⋅1,300,000,000=302,4180.510.9995347418419291300000000302418

geniuses, which is fairly close to SH’s estimate.

http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/218926/steve-hsus-calculation-of-geniuses-in-china/218928#218928 

Sample Page Sidebar

Have any Question?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share:

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest
Share on linkedin
hcc headline2 mobile 1

GET ALL THE WEEK'S NEWS
WITH YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TO THE TOP CHINA NEWSLETTER

Amazon BUY THIS BOOK:

Most Popular

Categories