风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
IQ affects Job performance and crime
The people with higher IQ level have higher rate in better job perfromance and lower rate in commit a crime. The people of China have highest IQ level, so that China has highest social productivity and lowest crime rate.
Optimal IQ’s for Various Groups
DECEMBER 23, 2011 · 11:08 PM
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/optimal-iqs-for-various-groups/?
Hey Rob! The 106 figure given for East Asians is highly suspicious. It seems like these are taken directly from SAT’s in which East Asians are overrepresented vs. all other groups that are underrepresented (save Jews and Indians).
105 in fact seems to be the absolute bottom end of East Asian IQ, which what poorest provinces of China as well as Mongolia get.
Zhejiang’s IQ was determined to be 115-116 (Raven’s).
This is Zhejiang’s (52 million people) performance on the recent PISA. It’s roughly 1 full SD over the highest white scores.
Koreans and Japanese reaction times far outperform their alleged 105-106 IQ’s (110-112 for adults has been found, and most recently 110 was found for Nagoya or another city in Japan)
WNs, neo-Nazis and Klansmen grudgingly admit to higher East Asian IQ’s but refuse to acknowledge that
1) Chinese and Sino-Tibetans are genetically distinct from other high IQ groups like the Koreans and Japanese
2) the North Chinese and Mongols are far more “pure-blooded” as far as East Asians go than either Koreans or Japanese
3) the place where Chinese most likely evolved into what they are, Tibet, is one of the coldest places on earth. It’s called the third pole for a reason.
4) IQ tests are biased in their age norming
5) the dumbest whites simply are not tested
6) East Asian societies are far more egalitarian than people realize, which means there’s much less of a rural-urban gap and much less selection bias
All non-white IQ’s are essentially grossly understated due to some combination of bias or poor nutrition.
I’d put optimal genotype IQ as follows:
North Coastal China: 115-118
South Coastal China: 112-116
Generalized Japanese/Korean: 110-112
Generalized Northern Euros: 97-102
Generalized Southern Euros: 92-102
Generalized Indian: 92-96 (they suffer from poor environment)
Sub-Saharan Africans: 85ish (malnutrition and poor education, but age bias favors them)
Everyone else (excl. Ashkenazi/Eastern Euros) I’d take Lynn’s latest and then tack on some 5-10 points. The IQ of Chinese in the traditional centers of learning and wealth are grossly underestimated.
This is nice stuff. Finally, an optimistic post about IQ. It is amazing that the people of Zhejiang have IQ’s of 116, but it doesn’t necessarily surprise me. I had always heard that the E. Asian IQ was 105, but the East Asians I kept meeting seemed so much smarter than that. A lot of them seemed smarter than I was! The numbers just did not seem to add up.
Another thing I noticed was the effortlessness of E. Asian achievement. My East Asian friends used to laugh at me for studying.
“Bob? Why do you study? We never study. Haha.” They got straight A’s.
“You never study?” I would ask.
“Maybe a little bit, the night before a test.”
This is something I have always known about smart people. My Mom used to work for a psychologist as a secretary. He administered IQ tests, among other tests.
He was brought up to believe that the high scorers studied all the time. So he would ask them if they studied a lot. The highest scorers often said that they hardly ever studied because the work was simply too easy. Often those scoring much lower said that they studied all the time, but still struggled to barely make good grades. He was getting ready to throw out the whole “People are smart because they study all the time,” thing.
He was also very liberal. But after giving IQ tests for 25 years, he was starting to wonder. The Jews and Asians scored highest, then the Whites, and then the Blacks. He also said that Mormons were “very nice, but dumb.” Welcome President Romney.
Asian scores may indeed be higher than what they seem, but this remains to be demonstrated. Surely the Zhejiang scores are very high. This makes the Zhejiang people as smart as Jews, with 3 times the population. The Protocols of the Elders of Zhejiang anyone?
It is interesting that the Chinese may have evolved in Tibet, one of the coldest places on Earth. That is if we are to put any weight on the cold = high IQ theory of IQ. I am not sure about huax’s points 4-6. I am also not sure about his optimized phenotypic IQ scores for Asia. However, the ones for Europe may be about right.
For India, he may be onto something. Indian IQ’s are low – at 82, lower than US Blacks at 87. However when Indians move to the West, the resulting scores tend to be ~92-96. There is of course the question of selection bias – that we are only getting the smartest of Indians. Yet Indian IQ’s are just as high in the UK, where any old Indian can immigrate, and they have not had boatloads of IT immigrants.
The optimal Black IQ may indeed be ~85. The US Black IQ is 87, but they have 15% White admixture. The UK Black IQ (mostly Jamaican) is 86, but they have 9% White admixture. At any rate, African and Caribbean IQ’s can conceivably rise to ~85 under optimal conditions. A lot of people are pessimistic about Africa, but in terms of IQ, the future may indeed be bright. We could be seeing substantial IQ rise in Africa in the future. Considering all of Africa’s problems, rising IQ can only benefit the continent.
It’s depressing to think that Black IQ may have ceilinged out in the US and UK. Nevertheless, Western Blacks have benefited greatly from moving to the West. If they had stayed in Africa or the Caribbean, their IQ’s would be 67-71. They love to complain about Western racism, but it looks like in addition to a lot of racism, we also donated about 15 IQ points to them. And you’re welcome.
In education, Chinese students lead the world
By Ken Wightman Dec 7, 2010 in World
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301153
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301153#ixzz5C7r2nL9m
The 2009 PISA test results were released today. The U.S. student scores were a great disappointment — American students finished about two dozen notches down from the pace-setting Chinese.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which administers the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) tests in about 65 countries worldwide every three years, the next strongest performances after China were from South Korea, Finland, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand and Japan. Full results here.
"We have to see this as a wake-up call," Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told The New York Times.
“I know skeptics will want to argue with the results, but we consider them to be accurate and reliable, and we have to see them as a challenge to get better. The United States came in 23rd or 24th in most subjects. We can quibble, or we can face the brutal truth that we’re being out-educated.”
The 65 participating countries are divided into to groups: 30 OECD member countries and 35 partner countries. While South Korea and Finland led the OECD group in reading literacy, China was the leading partner country and finished well ahead of both the OECD leaders. The tests in China were conducted in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Macao. All three participating regions in China delivered high grades but Shanghai was especially noteworthy.
American students were not even in contention, delivering average math scores that placed them below more than two dozen other countries.
In science, Shanghai students scored 575 while those in the United States scored 502. While this score is not shameful, it puts the U.S. in the company of Ireland, Norway, France and others, it carries no bragging rights either. Placing 23rd in science is not where students from the world's leading economy should find themselves.
Boys still have their hold on first place in math but the gender gap in science among top performing student is small. When the three areas of academic expertise — reading, math, science — are considered, the report says, "on average across OECD countries, 4.4 percent of girls and 3.8 percent of boys are top performers in all three subjects . . ." Among those at the very top with wide ranging interests and knowledge, girls clearly rule!
If you're curious, sample questions from the tests have been posted by the OECD.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301153#ixzz5C7pqztiA
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301153#ixzz5C7omXjzv
Follow photo was from Finnish Education System: Did PISA really say it is "the best"?
多省市PISA测试 浙江学生数学和科学素养全球第二
梁津铭/制图
浙江在线01月11日讯
http://www.anhuinews.com/zhuyeguanli/system/2011/01/11/003654070.shtml
在教育国际化的今天，我们很关心自己孩子所接受的教育质量，在全球排名中究竟处于什么位置？和最先进的教育模式有多大差距？
全球公认的一个权威指标就是这个学生能力国际评价(PISA)。在最近PISA2009测试中，第一次参与测试的上海学生在阅读、数学和科学素养三方面夺得第一，震惊世界。事实上，2009年，中国大陆还有11个省市作为试测地区，其中就包括浙江、北京、天津、江苏等。中国试测的研究工作由教育部考试中心统筹，从11个省市抽取了621所学校、21003名学生作为样本，浙江地区1800余名15岁学生的试测工作由省教育考试院组织实施。昨晚，浙江首次公布试测成绩，浙江学生在阅读、数学和科学成绩均处于全国试点地区(除上海以外)的第一位。数学和科学素养全球第二，阅读素养全球第六。
参加此次测试的浙江15岁在校生来自59所学校，1800多人，其中80%以上来自乡镇学校。杭州地区列入抽测的学校有：锦绣中学、杭州第十一中、源清中学、余杭区杭州二中树兰实验学校、塘栖中学、萧山第十一中学、浦阳镇初级中学、萧山益农镇夹灶初中等，参与测试的学生均为初三和高一的学生。宁波三中的女生余静娜就是其中一个。她感觉非常新鲜，认为PISA的测试题目与他们的生活息息相关，考试氛围也不像平常考试那么森严，还有几分钟的考间休息时间，可以让他们闭目养神，认真思考一下自己刚才答题的对错，这是平时考试从未有过的。记者了解到，这项学生能力国际评价以纸笔测验的形式测量学生的阅读、数学和科学这3方面的能力，学生还需完成一份关于他们的背景和态度的调查表。
据浙江学生能力国际评价项目组负责人介绍，从测评结果看，浙江试测学生中男生数学和科学领域的表现明显好于女生，女生阅读领域的表现明显优于男生。城市地区学生阅读、数学和科学领域的成绩均明显高于县镇和农村地区学生，且县镇学生均好于农村学生。
据教育部考试中心提供的分析报告，在中国试点的11个地区中，浙江学生学习负担最轻，学习兴趣最浓。在测评中也发现，学生出于兴趣阅读各种杂志、漫画、报纸、小说类和非小说类文本的频率较小，学生电子化文本阅读频率也较少，有约55%的学生不知道或几乎没有进行过电子化相关文本阅读。像宁波三中校长张曦参阅了PISA的部分试题后就意识到，今后的教育教学改革，必须把培养学生的“信息素养”放在重要的位置，培养学生运用信息技术解决问题的能力。
“学生能力国际评价”测试在展示浙江教育成效的同时也暴露了一些不足之处。比如要合理调整教学时间和学生负担，促进学生阅读的多样性和频率，提高教师的学历水平，优化教师的专业结构，减小因学生背景变量带来的教育不平等，从整体上提高学校教育的公平和效益。
IQ Intelligence quotient affects Job performance and crime
Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient?
Job performance
According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[107] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6.[108]The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for.[9] While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[109] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.[107]That said, for highly qualified activities (research, management) low IQ scores are more likely to be a barrier to adequate performance, whereas for minimally-skilled activities, athletic strength (manual strength, speed, stamina, and coordination) are more likely to influence performance.[107] The prevailing view among academics is that it is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates job performance. This view has been challenged by Byington & Felps (2010), who argued that "the current applications of IQ-reflective tests allow individuals with high IQ scores to receive greater access to developmental resources, enabling them to acquire additional capabilities over time, and ultimately perform their jobs better."[110]
In establishing a causal direction to the link between IQ and work performance, longitudinal studies by Watkins and others suggest that IQ exerts a causal influence on future academic achievement, whereas academic achievement does not substantially influence future IQ scores.[111] Treena Eileen Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson write that general cognitive ability, but not specific ability scores, predict academic achievement, with the exception that processing speed and spatial ability predict performance on the SAT math beyond the effect of general cognitive ability.[112]
The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs.[113]
Crime
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that the correlation between IQ and crime was −0.2. It was −0.19 between IQ scores and number of juvenile offenses in a large Danish sample; with social class controlled, the correlation dropped to −0.17. A correlation of 0.20 means that the explained variance is 4%. The causal links between psychometric ability and social outcomes may be indirect. Children with poor scholastic performance may feel alienated. Consequently, they may be more likely to engage in delinquent behavior, compared to other children who do well.[9]
In his book The g Factor (1998), Arthur Jensen cited data which showed that, regardless of race, people with IQs between 70 and 90 have higher crime rates than people with IQs below or above this range, with the peak range being between 80 and 90.
The 2009 Handbook of Crime Correlates stated that reviews have found that around eight IQ points, or 0.5 SD, separate criminals from the general population, especially for persistent serious offenders. It has been suggested that this simply reflects that "only dumb ones get caught" but there is similarly a negative relation between IQ and self-reported offending. That children with conduct disorder have lower IQ than their peers "strongly argues" for the theory.[123]
A study of the relationship between US county-level IQ and US county-level crime rates found that higher average IQs were associated with lower levels of property crime, burglary, larceny rate, motor vehicle theft, violent crime, robbery, and aggravated assault. These results were not "confounded by a measure of concentrated disadvantage that captures the effects of race, poverty, and other social disadvantages of the county."[124][125]
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that the correlations for most "negative outcome" variables are typically smaller than 0.20, which means that the explained variance is less than 4%.[9]
Tambs et al.[126][better source needed] found that occupational status, educational attainment, and IQ are individually heritable; and further found that "genetic variance influencing educational attainment ... contributed approximately one-fourth of the genetic variance for occupational status and nearly half the genetic variance for IQ." In a sample of U.S. siblings, Rowe et al.[127] report that the inequality in education and income was predominantly due to genes, with shared environmental factors playing a subordinate role.
