IQ, China, and the Wealth of Nations

IQ, China, and the Wealth of Nations

https://www.herecomeschina.com/iq-china-and-the-wealth-of-nations/

January 15, 2024

智商、中国和国富论
https://www.herecomeschina.com/iq-china-and-the-wealth-of-nations/
2024 年 1 月 15 日
“假设服从正态分布，美国只有大约 10,000 人表现达到+4SD，欧洲的人数也类似。 因此，这是一个经过精心挑选的人群（大约是美国每年排名前几百的高中生）。 如果你将东北亚的数字推断为中国的 13 亿人口，你会得到大约 30 万人处于这个水平，这是相当惊人的”。 PISA 结果中的亚洲白人智商差异。 史蒂夫·许.
评论：智商与经济发展，作者：Richard Lynn 和 Tatu Vanhanen Praeger 出版社，康涅狄格州韦斯特波特； 2002年。298页。 67.95 美元，精装本。 国际标准书号 0-275-97510-X
通过对世界上几乎每个国家的智商进行估计，并将其与 1820 年以来不同时期的人均国内生产总值 (GDP) 数据进行比较。林恩和万哈宁显示，人均 GDP 绝对水平和长期GDP 水平均呈显着正相关。 国民经济增长率与智商的关系。 智商被证明是这两个因变量的有力预测因子，尽管当然不是单因解释。 通过采用回归分析，作者分离出了异常数据点，并试图解释各个国家的原因。 它们在这些时间点上的表现与预期趋势线值存在显着偏差。
该主题最详尽、最权威的研究是《智商与全球不平等》。 作者：Fong、Lynn 和 Tatu Vanhanen，与所有比较智商研究一样，该研究也存在争议。 尽管如此，它仍然是黄金标准。
他们得出的结论是，他们所谓的“东亚群体”（中国人、日本人和韩国人）的平均智商最高，为 105，其次是欧洲人，为 100。在附录 1 中，作者解释了他们对发表此类有争议的发现的信心：“我们指出 以下问题。
因此，在第一章中，我们回顾了自18世纪孟德斯鸠和达姆·斯密考虑经济增长问题以来所发展的主要经济增长理论，并介绍了本研究的192个国家。
但是，在第二章中，我们定义并描述了智力的含义。
因此，在第三章中，我们总结了一些研究成果，表明智力是许多国家个人收入和相关现象（教育程度和社会经济地位）的决定因素； 这是我们的理论的基础，即国民的智力可能是各国人均收入的决定因素。
第 4 章介绍了我们如何收集和量化各国的 IQ，并提供了另外 32 个国家的新 IQ 数据。 这使得我们测量智商的国家总数达到 113 个。此外，还估算了其他 79 个国家的国民智商，这样我们就有了所有人口超过 40,000 的国家的智商。 在
第五章介绍了人类状况质量的五种衡量标准及其综合指数（QHC），以及从不同角度衡量人类状况的12个替代变量。
在第六章中，通过2002年人均PPP GNI（按购买力平价计算的国民总收入）、2002年成人识字率、高等教育入学率的实证证据检验了国民智商与人类状况质量之间正向关系的假设。 、2002年出生时的预期寿命以及2002年的民主化水平。
第七章重点讨论国民智商与人类状况综合指数（QHC）之间的关系，在回归分析的基础上，在单一国家层面对结果进行分析。 通过国家智商探索纬度和年平均气温对人类状况的影响来检查结果。
第 8 章表明，国民智商还与从不同角度衡量人类状况差异的许多其他变量相关。 这些分析中使用了十二个替代变量。
第9章讨论了遗传和环境决定因素对民族差异的影响。 根据情报，得出的结论是，人口的种族身份是主要因素。
第 10 章考虑了我们最重要的措施之间的因果关系。
第11章（批评与反驳）讨论并回应评论家对我们的理论提出的批评。 最后，我们在第十二章总结了本研究的结果和结论，并讨论了政策含义。 五个附录对正文进行了补充。
附录 1 列出并记录了 113 个国家/地区的国民智商计算结果。
附录2包括2002年成人识字率的记录经验数据。192个国家的高等教育毛入学率、1002年以美元计算的购买力平价人均国民总收入以及2002年出生时的预期寿命 。
但是，附录3

‘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.

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.”

  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. 

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.