Reddit reviews IQ and the Wealth of Nations
We found 14 Reddit comments about IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Reddit reviews IQ and the Wealth of NationsWe found 14 Reddit comments about IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Looks like it comes from this book.
wenn du es genau wissen willst empfehle ich diese beiden hier
https://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X
https://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244
IQ and the Wealth of Nations was published in 2002 by Lynn and Vanhanen. It was followed by IQ and Global Inequality in 2006. Here is a map taken from that book.They contend that nations differ in IQ and that this is predictive of their economic success. Their data support them in this. Here is a more recent figure that uses distinct data, with cognitive ability estimated from independent performance measures, PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS international exams.
The Left do not like genetic determinism and reacted angrily to the book: these things should not be said, it's all racist, IQ is meaningless, it's all down to differences in nurture. The usual squid's ink, in fact.
The reality is far more complex, and this post catches another angle of it. Primate brain size correlates strongly with the average number of animals in a troop, as do estimates of their intelligence. That is, social behaviour - intensionality, having a model of the mind of others - is one of the most intense cognitive tasks that we face. Managing a stable society in which long run collaboration, property rights comes late in development, and appears to be the key step in achieving it. Differences in assessed institutional strength explains around two thirds of the differences in social and economic development between 1950 and today.
Is this related to "national IQ", and collaboration consequent on that? Certainly, but in a non-linear way. Average IQ in the industrial world has risen by 30 points since the 1920s: the Flynn effect. The mean today would have been seen as "gifted" in 1920. That is down to nutrition, education and the far better understanding that the average person has of the world that surrounds them. A soap opera is a marvellous education in how other people "work".
All of this is rather good news. The Left should not be in denial about this: given appropriate stimuli, the world's population can improve its collaboration and prosperity much more rapidly than naive factor supply analysis would suggest. It may be that poor countries generate conditions that lead to populations with low IQs , and not that some countries have innately lower average intelligence than others.
Schieffer, and probably the blogger, are not White men. If you read Prof. Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique" you will see that Jews have worked concertedly for generations using every available means, including their boasted control of media, to genocide White people.
And what's the matter if White people do hang together? Every other ethnic group does. Diversity is a Jewish strategy for disenfranchising and displacing White people. Jews should chill out and leave White folks alone on their journey to the stars, lest we send them to practice "multiculturalism" with their "equals" in mud huts. See also "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" by Richard Lynn
Here is a very politically incorrect and probably the most truthful reason as to why poor nations are poor...
http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416879544&sr=1-1&keywords=iq+and+the+wealth+of+nations
I read a lot. I was in elementary school in the 1970s and it was all the rage back then to train kids in gifted programs in speed-reading, which my school did. I was the fastest reader, in fact I got a talking-to for speeding up the machine because it was going too slowly for me. :| I still read very quickly.
Most of the books I read have to do with religion and spirituality, like The Weapon, Resistance, The Four Last Things. Right now I'm deep into St. Faustina's diary. It's extraordinary.
In fiction I love classic literature, novels and short stories. Jane Austen, J.D. Salinger, Nathaniel Hawthorne. I have a particular taste for 19th century French writers: Honoré de Balzac, Gustave Flaubert, Victor Hugo. They motivate me to improve my French.
In non-fiction, I read about dog training and health, business, human nutrition and health, history and politics. Anyone struggling with weight loss might want to check out Dr. Jason Fung's The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended - good info there.
Currently on my to-buy list:
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History
The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise
I prefer paper books, they are dependable and unchanging. Ebooks may or may not be there later and you never know how they've been changed, or by whom.
I don't think any of that has to do with being an INTP necessarily, except maybe having a range of interests.
Przecież w materiale źródłowym nie ma nic o wynikach testów IQ a tylko oszacowania z 2003 odnośnie populacji na świecie!
CZY WY LUDZIE W OGÓLE CZYTACIE CO LINKUJECIE?
Oszacowania brały pod uwagę SZACUNKOWY WZROST POPULACJI na świecie w krajach słabo rozwiniętych! JAK TO SIĘ MA DO UŻYTKOWANIA SMARTFONÓW?!
Nawet w zalinkowanym przez ciebie artykule jest kwestia spekulacji:
> IQ scores are normalised for a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15 in the populations for which they were originally developed. Is the standard deviation the same in populations with higher or lower mean IQ?
> I don't know. This is a fascinating question about which I have found no research whatsoever. Absent any information to the contrary, in computing the global IQ histogram in the charts at the top of this document, I assume a standard deviation of 15 points regardless of the mean. Note that this assumption only affects the shape of the histogram; the global mean is independent of the variance of individual country populations.
TO NIE SĄ ŻADNE BADANIA A TYLKO SZACUNKI dwóch kolesi: Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen
Macie nawet na Amazonie ich książkę do kupienia za ponad 100 dolarów: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/027597510X/fourmilabwwwfour
Pierwszy autor (Lynn) został pozbawiony statusu profesora:
Drugi autor (Vanhanen) też już nie pracuje a w Finlandii jego wypowiedzi były kwestionowane jako rastistowskie:
Normally I don't reply to something that has a bunch of immature name calling and personal attacks, but here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Results
This study showed that when a mulatto child (one Black and one White parent) was raised in an affluent home they had a 90 IQ (once you corrected for the Flynn effect). But even if you don't correct for the Flynn effect "pure" Black children still scored one standard deviation lower than Whites which is the norm. The original numbers were the correct ratio, just a little high.
Race mixing isn't wrong, nor does it always produce undesirable results. I never said that. What I did say was that some pairings were going to be less desirable than others.
For example is a White and an Asian had a child the average IQ would be about 103, 3 points above the White average. But if they had a child with a Black person, like the study shows, their IQ would average 90.
The second reason I didn't want to reply is that nothing I say or link is going to persuade you. You are like a religious zealot. You believe that races that spent 50,000 years apart in different environments somehow evolved the same exact brain.
Do you want studies from scientists? Alright.
Harvard dissertation:
http://delong.typepad.com/pdf-1.pdf
Here is the first sentence from the Harvard approved PhD dissertation abstract:
"The statistical construct known as IQ can reliably estimate general mental ability, or intelligence. The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is significantly lower than that of the White native population, and the difference is likely to persist over generations."
In your face with a can of mace, make you cry all over the place!! Yeah, you were wrong. Like, really wrong. But it's OK, admitting it is the first step.
The Bell Curve:
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381017281&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bell+curve
IQ and the wealth of nations
http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381017308&sr=8-1&keywords=IQ+and+the+wealth+of+nations
Here are 1,000s of links to read:
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/
Here is a brilliant woman researcher who goes by the name "HBD Chick".
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/
Here is one of the best journalists on the topic of race, Steve Sailor:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-race-faq
But, you wont read any of it. At least not seriously. You'll just tell me how it's "psudo science" and how I'm just a stupid racist bigot for thinking that groups of people could have average differences. Sigh.
link studies on what...genetic component to altruism? here, read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1491514507
IQ and genetics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html
Deary IJ, Johnson W, Houlihan LM. Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Hum Genet2009; 126: 215–232. | Article | PubMed | ISI |
Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM. Behavioral genetics, 6th edn. Worth Publishers: New York, 2013.
https://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002150027.htm
I dunno...do you need more sources? This is a good intro reading, there are many thousands more studies...
they all contradict the politically correct narrative, and they all suggest that importing 3rd world immigrants into wealthy nations is an excellent way to destroy those nations. This is not controversial speculation...for actual scientists it is a known fact. This should make you feel a bit uncomfortable...unless you live in israel or china of course.
>No, it's that modern people score ~120 on older tests. We can test living people with older tests, we can't test dead people with new tests.
No, the implication is also that older people score lower on modern tests. In the Dumfries and Des Moines tests this was shown to be the case when comparing similar population groups across generations when testing on the new full-form tests like the WAIS-IV but the Raven's Progressive Matrices tests showed very little or negative gains in crystallized IQ and slight gains in both in fluid intelligence.
Re-norming of tests is designed with this in mind because they are re-normed on a culturally-adapted basis.
>How would that work? The flynn effect has been observed in people taking THE OLDER TESTS.
You're misunderstanding how tests are normed. When I started administering IQ tests in 2006 we had fewer sections and a greater focus on actual IQ, which is to say arithmetic and verbal ability.
You have obviously not read enough data regarding the Flynn Effect if you don't understand how it work. The Flynn Effect heavily uses g as a basis for comparison in the absence of actual testing.
>Flynn found that the highest gains are not on subtests that measure vocab and arithmetic, but rather on culturally-loaded subtests with questions like “How are dogs and rabbits similar?” that can illicit different answers depending on one’s everyday life experience.
>Flynn says our modern lives are more cognitively demanding and so we’ve acquired something he calls, “scientific spectacles.” Today, we are more likely to answer using abstract categories, like, dogs and rabbits are mammals, rather than the more concrete, like, dogs and rabbits are pets.
Culturally adapted tests provide these new and differing results thanks to their innate cultural bias.
Strict IQ tests do not favor the new generation or show a great increase except in theory and with test comparisons and not in result comparisons.
>Good to know you are an old person. Because one thing hunting another something does make them similar.
The point is to note they are both animals used in a sport or that they're pets of some sort and not that they are both the abstract, "animal," as such.
>That study you gave at the bottom is full of it. IQ cannot be determined by reaction time only. I have a fairly low reaction time, but above average IQ.
Did you read it? People had worse scores on digit spanning tests. Digit spanning is a direct test still used today to test memory. The abstract only seems to note the basic psychometric measure they use to derive g differences and not where they get the actual IQ differences but the average differences in abstracts in their place.
g is an abstract form of crystallized IQ measure that is best suited in giving averages and curves and is not necessarily indicative of your exact IQ.
I recommend reading the whole thing and the rest of The Flynn Effect Re-Evaluated in it's entirety.
You've entirely missed the point in how these tests are created, what they are based upon, or how they are developed and how that development has changed in recent years.
-----------------------------
I didn't want to wholly offend you with how I stated it but that is how I saw it so I've decided to link some excellent books on the matter.
Here are...
The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability by Arthur Jensen
What is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect by James Flynn
A Negative Flynn Effect in Finland by Edward Dutton and edited by Richard Lynn
A Beautiful Theory, Killed by a Nasty, Ugly
Little Fact by Alan Kaufman, Thomas Dillon, and Jeffrey Kirsch
IQ and Global Inequality by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen
Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism by Tatu Vanhanen
IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen and Ron Unz' critiques, Lynn's responses.
Richard Lynn's work in his book demonstrates the racial disparity in intelligence: https://smile.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X?sa-no-redirect=1
The study I linked proves the heritability/genetic component of intelligence.
> A little racist there...or maybe I'm the only one feeling that.
I don’t really get this over the top political correctness that rules public discourse these days.
> maybe I'm the only one feeling that. I know that a lot of Africans are in utter poverty and there are areas in America (Harlem) where African Americans are in a similar situation comparatively but I'm not going to jump the gun and say black people are more violent and less developed.
Africans are the world over less developed. The question is what the cause of this is. Some say that violence is because of the socio-economic circumstances. I personally think that violence and culture causes their socio-economic circumstances and not vice a versa.
There is quite a lot of evidence that support this proposition if you are willing to look past narrow minded political correctness.
And yeah, not all of us live in the USA.
> I know at least 20 or so that are all going to medical school, are damn brilliant, and some of the nicest, kind-hearted people I know.
A few statistical outliers/anecdotal evidence do not prove a proposition. Educated black people are in the fast minority. A black person in the USA is more inclined to go to jail than to university.
>: more 'low IQ' people are present in the population, more 'high IQ' people are present in the population. There's nothing disastrous about this scenario.
False. You clearly are unfamiliar with the basics of statistics....Furthermore, it is clear what low IQ can do to a country or people
https://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X#customerReviews
http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X