風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
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測試 浙江學生數學和科學素養全球第二
梁津銘/製圖
浙江在線01月11日訊
http://www.anhuinews.com/zhuyeguanli/system/2011/01/11/003654070.shtml
在教育國際化的今天，我們很關心自己孩子所接受的教育質量，在全球排名中究竟處於什麽位置？和最先進的教育模式有多大差距？
全球公認的一個權威指標就是這個學生能力國際評價(PISA)。在最近PISA2009測試中，第一次參與測試的上海學生在閱讀、數學和科學素養三方麵奪得第一，震驚世界。事實上，2009年，中國大陸還有11個省市作為試測地區，其中就包括浙江、北京、天津、江蘇等。中國試測的研究工作由教育部考試中心統籌，從11個省市抽取了621所學校、21003名學生作為樣本，浙江地區1800餘名15歲學生的試測工作由省教育考試院組織實施。昨晚，浙江首次公布試測成績，浙江學生在閱讀、數學和科學成績均處於全國試點地區(除上海以外)的第一位。數學和科學素養全球第二，閱讀素養全球第六。
參加此次測試的浙江15歲在校生來自59所學校，1800多人，其中80%以上來自鄉鎮學校。杭州地區列入抽測的學校有：錦繡中學、杭州第十一中、源清中學、餘杭區杭州二中樹蘭實驗學校、塘棲中學、蕭山第十一中學、浦陽鎮初級中學、蕭山益農鎮夾灶初中等，參與測試的學生均為初三和高一的學生。寧波三中的女生餘靜娜就是其中一個。她感覺非常新鮮，認為PISA的測試題目與他們的生活息息相關，考試氛圍也不像平常考試那麽森嚴，還有幾分鍾的考間休息時間，可以讓他們閉目養神，認真思考一下自己剛才答題的對錯，這是平時考試從未有過的。記者了解到，這項學生能力國際評價以紙筆測驗的形式測量學生的閱讀、數學和科學這3方麵的能力，學生還需完成一份關於他們的背景和態度的調查表。
據浙江學生能力國際評價項目組負責人介紹，從測評結果看，浙江試測學生中男生數學和科學領域的表現明顯好於女生，女生閱讀領域的表現明顯優於男生。城市地區學生閱讀、數學和科學領域的成績均明顯高於縣鎮和農村地區學生，且縣鎮學生均好於農村學生。
據教育部考試中心提供的分析報告，在中國試點的11個地區中，浙江學生學習負擔最輕，學習興趣最濃。在測評中也發現，學生出於興趣閱讀各種雜誌、漫畫、報紙、小說類和非小說類文本的頻率較小，學生電子化文本閱讀頻率也較少，有約55%的學生不知道或幾乎沒有進行過電子化相關文本閱讀。像寧波三中校長張曦參閱了PISA的部分試題後就意識到，今後的教育教學改革，必須把培養學生的“信息素養”放在重要的位置，培養學生運用信息技術解決問題的能力。
“學生能力國際評價”測試在展示浙江教育成效的同時也暴露了一些不足之處。比如要合理調整教學時間和學生負擔，促進學生閱讀的多樣性和頻率，提高教師的學曆水平，優化教師的專業結構，減小因學生背景變量帶來的教育不平等，從整體上提高學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.
