

IQ and the Wealth of Nations - quellhorst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

======
maxklein
Did you even read the article? The test was done in two cities in china. How
is this statistically relevant for a population of a billion - most of whom
are rural?

~~~
jerryji
Second the first comment.

Plus, why wasn't the original title "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" preserved
over a much less representing while much more link-baiting one "China has a
higher average IQ than the USA"?

------
camccann
To put numbers in perspective, IQ is generally defined as a normal
distribution (also called a gaussian curve, bell curve, etc.--it's a "normal"
distribution because it's extremely common in nature) with a global average of
100 and a standard deviation of 15 points. What this means in practice is
that, roughly, about 2/3 of the population has an IQ in the range 85-115.

So, assuming each country also has the same shape of distribution but
different averages, a difference of 15 points means that an average person in
the "smart" country is smarter than 83% of the people in the other country. An
average IQ difference of 30 points would be more like 98%.

Which, to me, seems like a pretty extreme difference. Without knowing more
about their methodology I don't know if I trust these numbers much. On the
other hand, looking at the countries at the lower end, I wouldn't be surprised
if a lot of the difference was due to environmental factors such as poor
nutrition.

Unfortunately, IQ is a field of study that's far too politically charged for
there to be much in the way of reputable research.

------
est
Hmm, as a Chinese, I think the Chinese education system is actually making
people stupid. I have seen many talented people through out my education, but
the didn't stand out in the end. Pretty sad.

Chinese has this kind of amazing potential, but I don't see a good way we can
we exploit it.

~~~
dublinclontarf
As a teacher in China I can tell you this(the linked article) means nothing.
The USA is not successful because it's got the highest IQ but in a large part
because of the creativity of it's people. Something China lack's, a VERY large
part as a result of it's institutions (i.e. the Chinese education system,
political system, and Dang'an).

The other major part being a collectivist, conformist culture isn't something
that breeds creativity. China's most creative people either leave for the USA
or rot in China.

~~~
cema
I tend to agree, but I want to add that we do not really know if this is the
decisive factor or just one of many.

Creativity is important, but perhaps political, or maybe "societal",
advantages (freedom of expression etc), are no less important. For example,
Russia, where I am from, has had plenty of creative people, but it is still
behind in many ways. What I can see is that in different societies creative
people apply their talents to achieving different goals.

------
GiraffeNecktie
Sounds very much like some of the social 'science' that was done in the 19th
and early 20th century.

~~~
moorej
Agreed. It sounds a bit like the rhetoric that emerges whenever a group of
people who see themselves as "naturally" dominating another group become
threatened by that group. For instance, a great deal of "scientific" evidence
for the subjugation of blacks developed thoughout Europe after the Haitian
revolution in the 18th century. The more those dominated show themselves to be
equals, the more necessary talk like this becomes for the masters to reassure
themselves that their place is justified.

------
tybris
Should be 100 in both.

------
shalmanese
To call IQ and the Wealth of Nations "controversial" is putting it rather
mildly. Idiotic would be a more accurate term. It's not even worth debating
this on HN.

