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、中國和國富論
https://www.herecomeschina.com/iq-china-and-the-wealth-of-nations/
2024 年 1 月 15 日
“假設服從正態分布，美國隻有大約 10,000 人表現達到+4SD，歐洲的人數也類似。 因此，這是一個經過精心挑選的人群（大約是美國每年排名前幾百的高中生）。 如果你將東北亞的數字推斷為中國的 13 億人口，你會得到大約 30 萬人處於這個水平，這是相當驚人的”。 PISA 結果中的亞洲白人智商差異。 史蒂夫·許.
評論：智商與經濟發展，作者：Richard Lynn 和 Tatu Vanhanen Praeger 出版社，康涅狄格州韋斯特波特； 2002年。298頁。 67.95 美元，精裝本。 國際標準書號 0-275-97510-X
通過對世界上幾乎每個國家的智商進行估計，並將其與 1820 年以來不同時期的人均國內生產總值 (GDP) 數據進行比較。林恩和萬哈寧顯示，人均 GDP 絕對水平和長期GDP 水平均呈顯著正相關。 國民經濟增長率與智商的關係。 智商被證明是這兩個因變量的有力預測因子，盡管當然不是單因解釋。 通過采用回歸分析，作者分離出了異常數據點，並試圖解釋各個國家的原因。 它們在這些時間點上的表現與預期趨勢線值存在顯著偏差。
該主題最詳盡、最權威的研究是《智商與全球不平等》。 作者：Fong、Lynn 和 Tatu Vanhanen，與所有比較智商研究一樣，該研究也存在爭議。 盡管如此，它仍然是黃金標準。
他們得出的結論是，他們所謂的“東亞群體”（中國人、日本人和韓國人）的平均智商最高，為 105，其次是歐洲人，為 100。在附錄 1 中，作者解釋了他們對發表此類有爭議的發現的信心：“我們指出 以下問題。
因此，在第一章中，我們回顧了自18世紀孟德斯鳩和達姆·斯密考慮經濟增長問題以來所發展的主要經濟增長理論，並介紹了本研究的192個國家。
但是，在第二章中，我們定義並描述了智力的含義。
因此，在第三章中，我們總結了一些研究成果，表明智力是許多國家個人收入和相關現象（教育程度和社會經濟地位）的決定因素； 這是我們的理論的基礎，即國民的智力可能是各國人均收入的決定因素。
第 4 章介紹了我們如何收集和量化各國的 IQ，並提供了另外 32 個國家的新 IQ 數據。 這使得我們測量智商的國家總數達到 113 個。此外，還估算了其他 79 個國家的國民智商，這樣我們就有了所有人口超過 40,000 的國家的智商。 在
第五章介紹了人類狀況質量的五種衡量標準及其綜合指數（QHC），以及從不同角度衡量人類狀況的12個替代變量。
在第六章中，通過2002年人均PPP GNI（按購買力平價計算的國民總收入）、2002年成人識字率、高等教育入學率的實證證據檢驗了國民智商與人類狀況質量之間正向關係的假設。 、2002年出生時的預期壽命以及2002年的民主化水平。
第七章重點討論國民智商與人類狀況綜合指數（QHC）之間的關係，在回歸分析的基礎上，在單一國家層麵對結果進行分析。 通過國家智商探索緯度和年平均氣溫對人類狀況的影響來檢查結果。
第 8 章表明，國民智商還與從不同角度衡量人類狀況差異的許多其他變量相關。 這些分析中使用了十二個替代變量。
第9章討論了遺傳和環境決定因素對民族差異的影響。 根據情報，得出的結論是，人口的種族身份是主要因素。
第 10 章考慮了我們最重要的措施之間的因果關係。
第11章（批評與反駁）討論並回應評論家對我們的理論提出的批評。 最後，我們在第十二章總結了本研究的結果和結論，並討論了政策含義。 五個附錄對正文進行了補充。
附錄 1 列出並記錄了 113 個國家/地區的國民智商計算結果。
附錄2包括2002年成人識字率的記錄經驗數據。192個國家的高等教育毛入學率、1002年以美元計算的購買力平價人均國民總收入以及2002年出生時的預期壽命 。
但是，附錄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.