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?
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
