Intelligence and disease and smart Singaporeans

On July 08 2010 19:16 cheeseninja wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation.

On July 08 2010 19:16 cheeseninja wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation.

On July 08 2010 19:16 Vinnesta wrote:
I almost spat out my food when I saw the second point! Singaporeans may have the best exam taking technique (for IQ tests and what-not), but pure intelligence? Of course, the research's scientific methodology is hard to argue with...

Could there also be a reverse causality, in that more intelligent people are more knowledgeable of the risks of infectious diseases and hence avoid them?

On July 08 2010 19:27 Araex wrote:
At the bottom of the list we find Equatorial Guinea. A country without any form of medical care and without any kind of schools.

It seems kinda obvious that there's a low IQ & high amount of disease burden.

If you compare countries with higher standards like South Korea (2,98 disease burden) and Switzerland (2.37 disease burden), Switzerland should have a higher "IQ", but actually it does not - not at all.

On July 08 2010 19:25 The Storyteller wrote:
1. It takes a lot of intelligence to figure out how to beat the exam system as opposed to just studying.

On July 08 2010 19:36 Cheerio wrote:
Decease burden depends on the level of the country development, the level of country development defines the level of education, the level of education defines how familiar the population is with the IQ test and how to improve one's rating with it (being familiar with the IQ test increases the result. In fact most IQ test PROMOTE being familiar with it to put everyone onto even ground).

Decease burden < country development > level of education > IQ results
Decease burden >does_not> IQ results


You must be trolling. In how many cases would it be intelligence and to not "someone just gave me a link to a perfect guide in the internet how to beat IQ test"

On July 08 2010 20:23 ggrrg wrote:
They say they have eliminated other possibilities as factors, e.g. education. Really!? How do you do that?

A quick look at the complete list of countries here:

http://media.economist.com/images/20100703/201027STC756.gif

On July 08 2010 20:40 Klockan3 wrote:

There is something awfully wrong with that set of data, only 8 of 184 countries have above average IQ in their population...

I wouldn't trust anything about this until this is explained.

On July 08 2010 19:08 The Storyteller wrote:
http://www.economist.com/node/16510958

A new article in the Economist explains a possible link between disease and average intelligence in a country. In a nutshell, the article makes 2 main points:

1. The more disease a country has, the less intelligent its population
2. Singapore has the highest average intelligence in the world

A quick look at the complete list of countries here:

http://media.economist.com/images/20100703/201027STC756.gif

reveals what some have always suspected - New Zealand has a higher average intelligence than Australia (99 vs 98), Britain has a higher average intelligence than France and America (100 vs 98) and Singapore has a higher average intelligence than everyone else, especially Malaysia (108 vs 98. Sorry guys).

South Korea scores 107, which is probably why they're leading the world in Starcraft.

I'd just like to point out that despite our high IQ, Singaporeans are unable to organise a TL.net meetup properly.

EDIT: Reading the article is advised before saying "correlation is not causation". This is the Economist, not the Sun, and there's an explanation of how the link was established in the article.

On July 08 2010 21:02 MightyAtom wrote:
And I'll back up my claim with just one point about the Americans, regardless how bad the public education system is and the huge gap in income disparity in America, the best universities by far are in the US.

On July 08 2010 21:23 cascades wrote:
Nothing to see here. To compensate for one idiot with 20 IQ, you need 80 ppl with 101 IQ to get 100 'normal' average.
There isn't medical technology to produce geniuses. But medical technology can help prevent people from turning into idiots, which drag down IQs.

On July 08 2010 20:23 ggrrg wrote:
Crazy "scientist" makes a bold hypothesis. Crazy "scientist" makes some statistics that he throws in and interprets them the way he needs to. Crazy "scientist" says he has proven his idea. This has happened numerous times in world's history and I doubt that those guys here will be the last ones.

They say they have eliminated other possibilities as factors, e.g. education. Really!? How do you do that? How could you possibly claim that you have eliminated education as a reason to score better on IQ tests? Honestly, if you have never learned to read you will obviously not be able to even answer many questions. If you have encountered logical/mathematical problems at school you will obviously score better on the logic part. With a vast general knowledge (which by the way you do not acquire working on a field all day long) you will be able to do better on the IQ test.

Hasn't it dawned on those "scientists" that the better developed a country is the better its education system and healt care are?

Its totally plausible to say that illness causes decline of intelligence; of course if you are sick you will perform worse mentally; of course there are diseases that attack your brain and impair you even after you have survived the illnes. However, stating that they have eliminated all other factors from their studies and presenting the "illness burden" as the main (only) reason for the IQ disparity is probably just as bold as wrong.

On July 08 2010 22:07 RaGe wrote:
My signature.

On July 08 2010 22:14 RifleCow wrote:
http://www.economist.com/node/16479286

"They note that the brains of newly born children require 87% of those children’s metabolic energy. In five-year-olds the figure is still 44% and even in adults the brain—a mere 2% of the body’s weight—consumes about a quarter of the body’s energy. Any competition for this energy is likely to damage the brain’s development, and parasites and pathogens compete for it in several ways."

Makes sense. Please read the above link. Both of the op's links come from this article which breaksdown their statements into more sensible arguements.

reveals what some have always suspected - New Zealand has a higher average intelligence than Australia (99 vs 98)

On July 08 2010 19:08 The Storyteller wrote:
South Korea scores 107, which is probably why they're leading the world in Starcraft.

On July 08 2010 22:39 HnR)hT wrote:

Does that mean that fat people are dumb?

On July 09 2010 00:07 Badjas wrote:
Something is wrong with that list. Very few countries score above or at 100 IQ average. While IQ is a measure that should come to 100 as an average for the group being measured. I guess it still functions as a relative comparison but how did they get that wrong?

On July 09 2010 00:07 Badjas wrote:
Something is wrong with that list. Very few countries score above or at 100 IQ average. While IQ is a measure that should come to 100 as an average for the group being measured. I guess it still functions as a relative comparison but how did they get that wrong?

On July 09 2010 00:07 Badjas wrote:
Something is wrong with that list. Very few countries score above or at 100 IQ average. While IQ is a measure that should come to 100 as an average for the group being measured. I guess it still functions as a relative comparison but how did they get that wrong?

On July 09 2010 00:14 KarlSberg~ wrote:

I noticed that too. Sure China is above 100 and weighs a lot but still as a whole it seems to average much below 100 which doesn't make sense.

On July 08 2010 19:27 Araex wrote:
At the bottom of the list we find Equatorial Guinea. A country without any form of medical care and without any kind of schools.

It seems kinda obvious that there's a low IQ & high amount of disease burden.

If you compare countries with higher standards like South Korea (2,98 disease burden) and Switzerland (2.37 disease burden), Switzerland should have a higher "IQ", but actually it does not - not at all.

2. Singapore has the highest average intelligence in the world

On July 09 2010 00:59 konadora wrote:


lol no way

On July 08 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:
Like this scientist I'll make a hypothesis of my own.

On July 09 2010 01:02 Saracen wrote:
Drawing any kind of conclusion from intelligence test studies like this one is bound to be faulty and erroneous...

On July 09 2010 01:26 QibingZero wrote:


This thread really should have ended here. Bravo sir!

How this kind of nonsense made it into a scientific journal, I don't know. When you use terms like 'IQ' and 'intelligence' you imply some inherent genetic difference (making the unspoken insinuation really racist). And yet, if you attribute this intelligence to education instead, the whole idea is one simple truism, hardly worth anyone's time to research and/or argue.

On July 09 2010 01:38 Ahseyo wrote:
Mindfuck me with every post you make, your retardness becomes even more and more questionable.

On July 09 2010 01:36 Hynda wrote:
Wait just a minute. For a person to be considered to have a retardation ie being a retard, (In it's correct form not the random internet insult) they should be under 70 IQ, some countries on that list shows an average of under 70 meaning that it claims some countries are filled with retards (there must be a better word for this, I feel like I'm insulting somone everytime I write it) to such a degree that it has become the norm. That is complete and utter bullshit.

On July 09 2010 01:43 YoonHo wrote:


Your posts contradict your sig.

Btw, when did they come up with this data, I'm sure I read about this few years ago.

On July 08 2010 19:36 Cheerio wrote:
Decease burden depends on the level of the country development, the level of country development defines the level of education, the level of education defines how familiar the population is with the IQ test and how to improve one's rating with it (being familiar with the IQ test increases the result. In fact most IQ test PROMOTE being familiar with it to put everyone onto even ground).

Decease burden < country development > level of education > IQ results
Decease burden >does_not> IQ results


You must be trolling. In how many cases would it be intelligence and to not "someone just gave me a link to a perfect guide in the internet how to beat IQ test" or something like that? 1%? After beating becomes common knowledge there is no intelligence involved.

P.S. this is a bragging thread really.

On July 09 2010 01:36 Hynda wrote:
Wait just a minute. For a person to be considered to have a retardation ie being a retard, (In it's correct form not the random internet insult) they should be under 70 IQ, some countries on that list shows an average of under 70 meaning that it claims some countries are filled with retards (there must be a better word for this, I feel like I'm insulting somone everytime I write it) to such a degree that it has become the norm. That is complete and utter bullshit.

On July 09 2010 01:50 Beyonder wrote:


And that is the problem with intelligence. We aren't exactly sure what it measures. Though the construct is capable of predicting pretty good, mostly work and school succes, the average intelligence is rising fast (Flynn effect). This means that the population in 1910 would score very low on our current test. This does not mean however that they would be mentally handicapped in any way. Same goes for those countries Just uneducated.

Mentally handicapped folks have their own intelligence tests, which is far more practical (what can and can't they do). The measurement under 70 is more of an indicator than an exact number.

On July 09 2010 01:36 Hynda wrote:
Wait just a minute. For a person to be considered to have a retardation ie being a retard, (In it's correct form not the random internet insult) they should be under 70 IQ, some countries on that list shows an average of under 70 meaning that it claims some countries are filled with retards (there must be a better word for this, I feel like I'm insulting somone everytime I write it) to such a degree that it has become the norm. That is complete and utter bullshit.

On July 09 2010 01:50 Beyonder wrote:


And that is the problem with intelligence and intelligence tests. We aren't exactly sure what it measures and means. Though the construct is capable of predicting pretty good, mostly work and school succes, the average intelligence is rising fast (Flynn effect). This means that the population in 1910 would score very low on our current test. This does not mean however that they would be mentally handicapped in any way. Same goes for those countries Just uneducated.

Mentally handicapped folks have their own intelligence tests, which is far more practical (what can and can't they do). The measurement under 70 is more of an indicator than an exact number.

On July 09 2010 01:54 Hynda wrote:

That's what we get from measuring "Intelligence" from a learned skill. It's a rather ridiculous concept to begin with, the only thing it can be used for is finding people that are on the extreme end of both spectrums.

On July 09 2010 01:57 Beyonder wrote:


Is it a ridiculous concept if it's highly reliable across age and has a (relatively) high predictive validity in the most important domains?

On July 09 2010 01:41 Beyonder wrote:

Uh, the time where we worry about genetic differences in scientific journals is long past us. It is well accepted that intelligence has large hereditary component and that western & asian folks perform better on intelligence tests than Americans, for example.

It's not racist, it's simply the way it is. They try to take this in account by creating 'culture free tests' (read: non-verbal), but even those (e.g., Raven's Progressive Matrices) don't take away the advantage people have.

On July 09 2010 02:18 QibingZero wrote:


Intelligence tests are by and large a terrible way to determine actual genetic differences, though. Once we have the ability to actually locate real differences in the brain, and isolate the responsible genes, then we can start talking about whether or not there is a statistically significant intelligence difference between peoples that goes beyond nurturing factors.

I will bite on this mention of 'western & asian' vs 'Americans' idea you have, though. What do you really mean by that? Is 'western' meant to be western European, and not the west as a whole? Is the majority of America not actually descended from western Europe and Asia? This is a very confusing statement you're making.

And obviously racism itself should not impede scientific progress, but you do have to question one's motives for using time and resources to research something like this. I can think of thousands of more relevant and useful subjects to explore. =P

On July 09 2010 02:15 Beyonder wrote:
More damage than good? Of course some individuals may get wrongly tested and 'suffer' thanks to it. I don't think you have an idea how much money your country saves and makes thanks to the intelligence tests. How many people get insight on their shortcomings thanks to these tests. You need an IQ above (or equal to) around 120 to do well at harder professions (i.e. doctor, professor), for example. A lot of these jobs will require an IQ-test or will require proof that you can perform at that intellectual level. You better be thankful for that.^^

It IS reliable in the sense that repeated measurements will averagely be very close to each other. The predictive validity might increase a little bit when combined with personality tests (especially conscientiousness and in a somewhat lesser form emotional stability), which are similar to 'EQ'-- but not a lot. Also, it is a myth that very intelligent people fail more at the more social aspect of life.

On July 09 2010 01:41 Beyonder wrote:

Uh, the time where we worry about genetic differences in scientific journals is long past us. It is well accepted that intelligence has large hereditary component and that western & asian folks perform better on intelligence tests than Americans, for example.

On July 09 2010 02:39 Hynda wrote:

Well they don't really. My father was a respected doctor and later researcher and his IQ wasn't above 100. You don't need 120 IQ to do those things, because it's a learned skill, you don't need to solve logical puzzles as a doctor or as a professor. However you do need to know your subject by the bucket load. Granted it makes it easier the higher your IQ is because it shows that you've got a easier time learning these stuff than others, this doesn't mean that they can't do it. It certainly doesn't mean they are at a disadvantage once they've done so.

Let me ask you this. What good is a doctor that can't handle patients? What good is a professor who can't interact with his pupils? What good is a doctor that's to lazy to read up on any of his patients journals, or even worse keeping up with the standard proceduers that is always evolving?

I have an IQ of 131 that means my IQ is within the top 2-3% in the world, I'm a member of Mensa or rather i was since I saw no point in handing them money for no reason. Still I was far from the best in my class or in anyway exceptional, well perhaps I was because I could maintain decent grades without studying through out most of my first 9 years in school. I was busy being rebelious and lazy doing other non-school things raging against the rightwing society and protesting against stuff in far away country. I got 11 points more IQ than what you say is required to be a doctor, yet I'm probably the least suitable person in this thread to become one.

IQ is such a fragmented part of a human and discriminating people based on it is ridiculous. If someone can work so hard that they pass the same tests as someone with 120 IQ why should they be barred because not having it?

Isn't it also ironic that I suffer from dyslexia? I'm supposed to be super smart, yet my brain can't even handle to spell the same word twice.

On July 09 2010 02:52 Orome wrote:
The amount of ignorance and arrogance towards scientific research on topics like this where everyone feels like they're an expert never ceases to amaze me. Guys, these people dedicate their career to gain insight into an incredibly complex topic. You might consider that they understand what they're doing better than you after reading an article and thinking about it for 2 minutes.

On July 09 2010 03:10 Malgrif wrote:
wtf niger has an average iq of 69? doesn't that mean most of their population is retarded? i doubt this study

On July 09 2010 02:57 Beyonder wrote:


If we're going to argue individuals here, then there is no point. Glad that you got to share your story.

On July 09 2010 03:26 Kaasflipje wrote:
To sum up my thoughts:

Poverty:
- less intelectual development
- more diseases

Wealth:

+ intelectual development
+ better healthcare

Pretty logical, huh? Also, that few arbitrary IQ numbers that South Korea has over the rest of the world does not make them better at Starcraft in anyway. The reason Korea dominates the scene is purely because everyone plays it in Korea.
The same reason why USA dominates basketball, or China dominates table tennis.

On July 09 2010 03:02 Boblion wrote:

Cesare Lombroso dedicated his whole career to gain insight into the same kind of incredibly complex topics. Does that mean he was right ?

On July 09 2010 03:10 Malgrif wrote:
wtf niger has an average iq of 69? doesn't that mean most of their population is retarded? i doubt this study

On July 09 2010 03:19 Terranist wrote:


no, it just means their country hasnt adopted western civilization's way of thinking.

On July 09 2010 04:55 blankspace wrote:


Although I don't doubt this, I've seen this sort of statement many times before and wonder exactly how the African country's way of thinking is different than western civilization's way. Or more specifically, what aspect of this difference causes them to score significantly lower on the iq tests (which are mostly based on identifying and continuing patterns I would presume).

On July 09 2010 01:36 Hynda wrote:
Wait just a minute. For a person to be considered to have a retardation ie being a retard, (In it's correct form not the random internet insult) they should be under 70 IQ, some countries on that list shows an average of under 70 meaning that it claims some countries are filled with retards (there must be a better word for this, I feel like I'm insulting somone everytime I write it) to such a degree that it has become the norm. That is complete and utter bullshit.

On July 09 2010 05:16 jello_biafra wrote:

Because they spend their days chilling in the countryside doing nothing instead of doing things like going to school/work, driving, using computers, television, phones etc.

On July 09 2010 05:27 Saturnize wrote:


Who would you be referring to?

Obviously you don't think Nigerians just "chill in the countryside" all day do you? lol

On July 08 2010 19:16 cheeseninja wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation.

On July 09 2010 06:57 larjarse wrote:


Yesss. I forget the specific sociological term that describes a correlation that is misleading because of a set of data, but disease and IQ of the general population cannot be measured with a direct ratio. I believe both disease and IQ are culture-specific.

On July 09 2010 01:12 htennek_mil wrote:


I wonder if it includes the Singapore PRs when measuring intelligence.

Might make sense then

On July 09 2010 02:18 QibingZero wrote:


Intelligence tests are by and large a terrible way to determine actual genetic differences, though. Once we have the ability to actually locate real differences in the brain, and isolate the responsible genes, then we can start talking about whether or not there is a statistically significant intelligence difference between peoples that goes beyond nurturing factors.

I will bite on this mention of 'western & asian' vs 'Americans' idea you have, though. What do you really mean by that? Is 'western' meant to be western European, and not the west as a whole? Is the majority of America not actually descended from western Europe and Asia? This is a very confusing statement you're making.

And obviously racism itself should not impede scientific progress, but you do have to question one's motives for using time and resources to research something like this. I can think of thousands of more relevant and useful subjects to explore. =P

The intelligence scores came from work carried out earlier this decade by Richard Lynn, a British psychologist, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish political scientist, who analysed IQ studies..

On July 09 2010 19:52 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
uh yea china has a higher avg iq than germany? many/most(?) ppl in china cant even read afaik lol

On July 09 2010 21:09 craz3d wrote:
Perhaps disease correlates with climate as well. Countries located in Africa or in the Caribbean have more disease burden, while countries in Scandinavia for example have less. So there's lots of other factors involved.

On July 09 2010 03:33 Beyonder wrote:

Read several articles which basically say the same thing. The flynn effect (global rising of intelligence) is most extreme in developing countries, most likely because of better healthcare, better education and so forth. Disease = worse healthcare = most likely worse educational system, etc, etc.

On July 09 2010 21:37 hypercube wrote:


Beyonder, how do you reconcile the Flynn Effect with your earlier post that 15 points of IQ is decided by the environment and the rest is genetic? In many populations the total increase was higher and if anything the population effect should have been towards lower IQ (i.e. the general trend has been that people with lower social status and on average lower IQ have more offsprings).

If twin studies rarely show more than 15 points of difference that doesn't mean it's an upper bound for environmental effects. Indeed, the correct interpretation seems to be that there are variables which are constant over separated twins but aren't between generations. There are obviously a lot of these.

On July 09 2010 01:47 Beyonder wrote:
Twin studies generally show that there's a variation of 15 IQ points (in the positive or negative) that's largely due to upbringing (stimulation by parents). Your genes largely decide between what interval you will place though.

On July 09 2010 21:47 Ahseyo wrote:

He obviously haven't read about IQ and IQ Tests and it's great flaws.

On July 09 2010 21:52 billyX333 wrote:


Wow, is that really true? How in the world would they do a study like that? Identical genetics but (apparently drastically) different environments?

Can you really tell me a kid raised by wolves would be only have 30 max fewer IQ points than if he/she had been raised by intellectual parents?

On July 09 2010 21:52 hypercube wrote:


No disrespect, but I'd rather read a well reasoned post that disagrees with my position than one with no substance that supports it.

On July 09 2010 21:54 Ahseyo wrote:


A bad argument and I can only laugh at how stupid it is. I have no idea how many flaws there are and apperantely he must have been high whilst writing it, or just I don't know.... Silly. As I said, EQ means alot more than IQ when you express your self emotionally and use your intellect than IQ.

On July 09 2010 21:56 Ahseyo wrote:
No substance that supports it? Did you even read what I wrote about IQ on page six? It's alot more relaible than IQ. How the hell can you say that IQ is a reliable system to measure intelligence on when they're theories that doesn't support any kind of real fact?

On July 09 2010 21:12 Ahseyo wrote:


Diseases only have a small affection of our intelligence, however. It also depends on WHAT KIND of diseases we are talking about here.

On July 09 2010 21:52 billyX333 wrote:


Wow, is that really true? How in the world would they do a study like that? Identical genetics but (apparently drastically) different environments?

Can you really tell me a kid raised by wolves would be only have 30 max fewer IQ points than if he/she had been raised by intellectual parents?

On July 09 2010 02:39 Hynda wrote:


I have an IQ of 131 that means my IQ is within the top 2-3% in the world, I'm a member of Mensa or rather i was since I saw no point in handing them money for no reason. Still I was far from the best in my class or in anyway exceptional, well perhaps I was because I could maintain decent grades without studying through out most of my first 9 years in school. I was busy being rebelious and lazy doing other non-school things raging against the rightwing society and protesting against stuff in far away country. I got 11 points more IQ than what you say is required to be a doctor, yet I'm probably the least suitable person in this thread to become one.

IQ is such a fragmented part of a human and discriminating people based on it is ridiculous. If someone can work so hard that they pass the same tests as someone with 120 IQ why should they be barred because not having it?

Isn't it also ironic that I suffer from dyslexia? I'm supposed to be super smart, yet my brain can't even handle to spell the same word twice.

On July 10 2010 00:12 seppolevne wrote:

You would think someone with an IQ of 131 would realize that anecdotes are useless.

On July 09 2010 23:30 Hynda wrote:

That's because IQ isn't designed to measure intelligence and no it doesn't matter what kind of diseases we are talking about. If a country has alot of diseases it will stunt it's growth, leading to less development for the treating of said diseases. The work force will be lesser meaning that kids will have to go to work at an earlier age. That in turn means they will leave school earlier if they even go in the first place, and even so the teaching will be subpar compared to the rest of the world. It's in school you learn how to solve the puzzles given to you on an IQ, if your population isn't educated they will fail on the IQ tests.

On July 09 2010 21:37 hypercube wrote:


Beyonder, how do you reconcile the Flynn Effect with your earlier post that 15 points of IQ is decided by the environment and the rest is genetic? In many populations the total increase was higher and if anything the population effect should have been towards lower IQ (i.e. the general trend has been that people with lower social status and on average lower IQ have more offsprings).

If twin studies rarely show more than 15 points of difference that doesn't mean it's an upper bound for environmental effects. Indeed, the correct interpretation seems to be that there are variables which are constant over separated twins but aren't between generations. There are obviously a lot of these.

The figures were obtained by taking equally-weighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations. The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available

Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart. IQ in children is different although correlated with IQ later in life and many of the studies tested only young children.

A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.

The notion that there is such a thing as a culturally neutral intelligence test is disputed..There are many difficulties when one is measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. Use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties and possible misunderstandings in other cultures.

On July 10 2010 01:42 Beyonder wrote:

Basically, the entire population rises and they keep adapting it to average to a 100, thus the IQ averagely stay the same. Everyone is receiving more education (in 'educated countries'). Also, as stated, it's a variation of +15 or -15 IQ points. Someone else explained the twin studies better than I can anyways

On July 10 2010 02:26 hypercube wrote:


Yikes. I wonder why didn't they use higher quality data, even if it meant not doing a global comparison. I wonder if any European country had conscription forms with IQ scores, medical history and maybe socioeconomic data.

On July 08 2010 19:33 endy wrote:
Stephen Hawking does not agree.

On July 10 2010 02:22 hypercube wrote:


That doesn't really address my point. Maybe I was vague, I'll try to make it more specific. Assume a simplistic model where IQ is determined by environmental and genetic factors.

My argument is that the IQ gain over time is a better lower bound for the environment's contribution than twin studies.

You could say that people that the genetic pool is different from 40-50 years ago. However there's some reason to believe that it is actually worse (in terms of intelligence). Selection pressure has been weaker and people with lower socioeconomic status have more children on average.

So if we accept that the genetic contribution in our model is close to 0 or even negative, the Flynn Effect has to come from environmental factors. Since IQ gains in some populations have been over 15 points we have to assume that the environmental contribution can be more than 15 points (and probably much more since the Flynn Effect would then measure the average environmental contribution, so we would expect both lower and higher values in specific cases).

On July 10 2010 03:14 darmousseh wrote:



I think it also doesn't help that IQ and income have almost 0 correlation. The best way to analyze it is to look at the type of sexual preferences people have and to examine which type of people are having more children. For example, in european society, men who were considered gentleman and more intelligent were highly like to get married and have children, whereas in modern society, intelligence has almost nothing to do with the likelihood of having children. In fact, I would say in the united states the 2 main factors contributing to children are 1. physical appearance and weight (which is why the population has probably reached a cap on average weight) 2. education levels: Women with less education tend to have more children. However, with genetic mixing of the genes, children will often turn out significantly smarter and with better health than their parents, just like how a mixed breed dog tends to be the healthiest dogs, so it balances out the equation pretty well.

On July 10 2010 01:42 Beyonder wrote:


Basically, the entire population rises and they keep adapting it to average to a 100, thus the IQ averagely stay the same. Everyone is receiving more education (in 'educated countries'). Also, as stated, it's a variation of +15 or -15 IQ points. Someone else explained the twin studies better than I can anyways

@ Ahseyo: really, if you believe EQ has a higher validity, reliability and is a better construct in such a discussion, then I highly doubt you ever read scientific literature on this subject.. If you are going to propose such a thing, elaborate and back it up, or don't post please.

On July 10 2010 17:11 kalleralle wrote:
Lol at using iq to measure anything. Who funded this shit study? Talk about unnessecary psuedo science.

On July 10 2010 17:13 Ahseyo wrote:


FINALLY! Someone who is agreeing here.

On July 10 2010 17:39 The Storyteller wrote:


Actually, I think you've both missed the point. This is a study done to see if helping sanitation could help raise a population's average IQ. No matter how many other factors there are in life that determine success, raising a population's IQ can't be a bad thing, and would be good for a country in the long run.

At the very least, this would show direct benefits of governments spending more on health care for poor communities within their countries.

So I don't see what you're screaming about. Nobody is saying that IQ is the be all and end all of success.

If I say well educated people, in general, earn more, are you going to complain that money isn't the only thing that makes you happy?

I can understand people saying that this study might be flawed because of the source material, but to say IQ is completely useless?

On July 10 2010 20:30 Qzy wrote:
Makes sense.

U MAD?
.

On July 10 2010 19:58 Ossian wrote:
rofl such a bogus article, the ivory coast has an average IQ of 69??? LMAO HOW RACIST IS THAT HAHAHA

On July 11 2010 12:40 NEWater wrote:
As 'smart' as we can be with academia and scoring in exams, I find the average Singaporean to be absolute dimwits and brain-dead in intellectual curiosity, and am disgusted with how the whole nation is basically a Yes-man State.

On July 10 2010 20:59 KwarK wrote:

Not at all racist unless it says they're not as good because they're black. If it instead suggests they don't do so well on the tests because of cultural barriers or malnutrition or poor education then race is nothing to do with it. You can't dismiss studies out of hand because your failure to understand the outcome creates a conflict with your immutable world view.

On July 08 2010 22:47 k!llua wrote:


Australia's IQ would be higher if all the Kiwis didn't keep coming onto the mainland for a job.

*runs*

Richard Lynn, a British psychologist, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish political scientist, who analysed IQ studies from 113 countries, and from subsequent work by Jelte Wicherts, a Dutch psychologist.

On July 11 2010 19:52 Subversive wrote:

I'd like to know the methods that these people used to measure intelligence. Otherwise for me, any subsequent findings are meaningless and not worth discussion.

On July 10 2010 02:08 Maenander wrote:
They sell this as science ? As a physicist, I am not amused.

IQ tests have problems in itself, but comparing IQ tests on a global scale? Give me a break.

Let me quote wikipedia on their IQ data set:

source

On July 11 2010 12:40 NEWater wrote:
I'm honestly ashamed as a Singaporean to read this thread and to see that some scientist decided to claim that we have the highest average IQ.

As 'smart' as we can be with academia and scoring in exams, I find the average Singaporean to be absolute dimwits and brain-dead in intellectual curiosity, and am disgusted with how the whole nation is basically a Yes-man State. Case in point on how high IQ doesn't matter at all, I can always cite my personal history/experience. My parents both hail from famous schools (The Chinese High & Cedar Girls' if the Singaporeans need to know), and somehow I become proof of Lee Kuan Yew's dubious opinions on eugenics because I got myself into ACS (Independent), yet another one of those famous schools. But I was taught all of the wrong things and subsequently got mocked in my childhood for it, because despite my parents' high IQ, they had the misfortune of being religious - especially the Baptist, Christian sort.

I was taught by my parents that Israel always deserved to win, that all Muslims and Palestinians were bad. Anyone who practiced a religion other than Christianity was inferior and deserved to have their false idols destroyed, et al. Because I was Chinese, I was automatically better than anyone else because the white man is lazy, Malays are horrendously lazy and Indians are stupid.

Those things wouldn't have been taught by truly intelligent, or truly educated parents. Thank goodness I know better now.

On July 11 2010 16:57 The Storyteller wrote:


You might need to meet more people, from both Singapore and other countries, to gain some perspective. The fabled "West" is not as great and free and creative as it is fashionable to think, and bureacracies all over the world are stuffed with yes-men. I find the average person from all countries I've visited to be pretty lacking in intellectual curiosity, with only a small group truly interested in learning new things.

Try talking politics with your average chap from Birmingham, UK and see how far you get. Not much further than with your average Singaporean, I can guarantee.

On July 11 2010 20:55 HnR)hT wrote:

In other words, your parents' belief that Israel deserves to survive the relentless Jihad against it (because Israel does not have and has never had expansionist ambitions, and on the contrary has consented to endless withdrawals and partitions of the original Mandate Palestine, set up by the Leage of Nations for the "reconstitution of the Jewish National Home"; because the Jihad against Israel has not changed in its fundamental objective since the Nazi-Muslim cooperation to exterminate the Jews in the Middle East during the war, which was only foiled by Rommel's defeat at El Alamain and by the German catastrophe at Stalingrad; because Muslims, whose religion fosters hatred of non-Muslims and of Jews especially, and who are subject to incessant, murderously racist incitement in mosques and in mass media and will not relent in their genocidal designs against Israel unless Israel is overwhelmingly more powerful; one could go on forever), is supposed to prove something bad about your parents? You don't know better. You are just an arrogant and ignorant fool who has been thoroughly deceived.

On July 11 2010 21:06 Orome wrote:
the ignorance level in this thread is reaching alarming heights again.

yup guys, you alone possess the brilliance to instantly spot the ridiculousness of one of the most important tests in psychology. it definitely doesn't have anything to do with you not understanding what an iq test's supposed to measure, not understanding how iq test results are supposed to be interpreted and not understanding the uses of even a simplified intelligence concept like the kind of intelligence an iq test measures.

On July 11 2010 19:58 Klockan3 wrote:

Read the thread maybe?
Here:

On July 11 2010 21:26 NEWater wrote:


I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Go back to your religion and huddle there. You have no place to make any comments on this when you're incapable of perceiving nuances in this world.

On July 11 2010 23:49 Servolisk wrote:
Another relentless HnR)hT logic free rampage... accidentally the greatest troll on earth.

On July 11 2010 23:59 HnR)hT wrote:

A pure personal attack with no information, no serious attempt to articulate an alternative view, no redeeming content whatsoever. This is seriously banworthy.

On July 11 2010 21:26 NEWater wrote:


I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Go back to your religion and huddle there. You have no place to make any comments on this when you're incapable of perceiving nuances in this world.

On July 12 2010 00:03 Servolisk wrote:


OK but you would be banned too. :/

"You are just an arrogant and ignorant fool who has been thoroughly deceived."

I guess your post had information but none of it was pertinent, I seriously hope you can see that. If you thought about your posts no one would need to point out the missing logic. I've seen you be instructed many times in political threads but you always stick to your dogma and crap posts.

On July 12 2010 00:06 bleh wrote:
Albert Einstein was not religious.

You're badly, badly misinterpreting what he referred to as "God" because you probably heard someone use the quote "God does not play dice" or one of his other 2-3 quotes that mention "God" and assumed this meant he actually believed in a God as perceived by organized religion.

"In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."[91]"

In a 1954 letter, he wrote, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”

n 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

SPINOZA'S GOD:
Spinoza believed God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal.[1] Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality,[11] namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is only understood in part. His identification of God with nature was more fully explained in his posthumously published Ethics.[1] That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. Spinoza has been described by one writer as an "Epicurean materialist."[11]

You're just repeating random snippets of information that you've heard somewhere at some point without understanding them or knowing what they mean. Einstein was not religious, he though it was primitive and childish and that God is a product of human imagination trying to justify the meaninglessness of its own existence.

On July 12 2010 00:21 Orome wrote:
lol, I was going to try to answer Servolisk, but I don't think this thread's going much further.

On July 08 2010 19:08 The Storyteller wrote:

I'd just like to point out that despite our high IQ, Singaporeans are unable to organise a TL.net meetup properly.

On July 12 2010 00:27 bleh wrote:
except you quoted someone who said "go back to your religion and huddle there etc." and then listed a bunch of people who you obviously thought were religious to indicate that what he was saying about religious people was false.

Nice try on that back pedaling. You clearly thought he was religious, the entire context of the quoted post was an attack on the intelligence of the religious.

I'll give you a hint: When you're in an argument and it's you vs everyone, it's probably because you don't know what you're talking about, not because you're smarter than everyone else. Sorry.

I'll give you a hint: When you're in an argument and it's you vs everyone, it's probably because you don't know what you're talking about, not because you're smarter than everyone else. Sorry.

On July 12 2010 00:33 bleh wrote:
again there's a reason you're the only one arguing the point you're arguing, it's because you're stupid, not because everyone else is.

Sorry. You're dumb, you shouldn't say words anymore, it's embarrassing.

On July 12 2010 00:07 HnR)hT wrote:

What gives you the right so presumptuously to dismiss my assertion that Muslims are subject to murderous incitement? Why don't you go to memri.org or palwatch.org and actually see how the Muslim media talks about Israel and Jews? Or read what ex-Muslims who escaped that world, such as Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Mossab Yousef say? But all my sources must be "far right propaganda," so what's the point?

On July 12 2010 00:47 NEWater wrote:


To be honest, anyone who's capable of fervently believing that there's an invisible all-powerful dude in the sky who loves them and has a plan for them are equally capable of being subject to murderous incitement.

Universal conscription in a multiracial and multicultural environment like Singapore gave me the opportunity to live and hang with Malay Muslims for 2 years and gain valuable insights into Islam and general Muslim culture. In fact, a student of our national history will discover that even though our citizen army of universal conscripts was initially formed to fight our greatest conventional threats in Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia who face us from our north and south respectively, the Muslims in our country are more likely to fight on our side because we at least had the human decency to treat them and respect them like actual human beings, and our equals. Hell, the Malaysians and Indonesians love to visit our country and love it more when we spend our tourist money in their countries. Even though we aren't perfect and the Malays aren't visible in so-called critical vocations and formations like the Air Force, Armor, Signals, Commandos, etc, they're still people I can trust to watch my back should (god forbid) I have to be thrown into combat with the rest of us.

It's easy for you to stay in America, never come into personal contact with Muslims and screech at them should they want to exercise their freedom of consciousness and worship in your country by seeking to build mosques and slap the easy label of terrorists on them. Please stop watching your Fox News and stop thinking that all Muslim media depicted in memri.org and palwatch.org is the entirety of Muslim media, for those two websites are just a mere subset of the entirety of Muslim media. I had to do a bit of intel work during my time in Signals, too, and I'm not unfamiliar with the Muslim media, for I could claim that all Christian media is full of racism and blind white power and nationalism if I chose to just read whatever that came out of your militias.

On July 12 2010 01:38 vnlegend wrote:
Singapore is more of a city-state than a country. You can't compare a 5million pop city to a country with 100mil people with rural areas and etc. All those little countries with little pop and mostly urban areas will have good stats, because those stats come from a highly selected population. One can easily say the Harvard campus-state is much smarter than Singapore.

On July 12 2010 01:26 HnR)hT wrote:

Finally, a halfway thoughtful post.

First, anyone can be subject to incitement, even atheists (as in Communist and Nazi regimes). But is it too much of a stretch to consider that Muslims may behave differently toward non-Muslims where they are in the majority, as opposed to where they are relatively weak? And the persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries (e.g., the Copts in Egypt, black Christians in Sudan, Hindus and Christians in Pakistan, Christians in Nigeria, and so forth) bears this out. And you can't really understand the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (which is a somewhat misleading appellation) without studying the intentions and motivations of both sides. Usually Israel is under the microscope of the world media, while what Arabs say and do, and believe, is glossed over or covered up. Case in point: a few days an Israeli newspaper circulated a rumor that Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of Fatah who rules in the West Bank, would let Israel keep a historically Jewish neighborhod of east Jerusalem. This claim was repeated in much of the major media here in the US even though it was categorically denied by Saeb Erekat, Abbas's second. And this is one of the most benign examples. Recently at a pan-Arab meeting Abbas reiterated that he would be personally for another pan-Arab attack on Israel were the leaders of the Arab countries up for it. One would think that this a really important piece of information if one wants to form an opinion about the peace process, but it was not mentioned (AFAIK) in any of the cable news programs.

MEMRI translates various items from Arabic and Farsi mass media into English (and much of it is far from horrible). Palwatch does the same for the "Palestinian territories." From these, there is ample, ample evidence that there is nothing Israel can do short of committing suicide to be on the good side of the Muslim world. It is mainstream to talk about Israel as a cancer, as Jews as subhuman. Even in Egypt, which is formally at peace with Israel. When this kind of incitement dominates any public discourse on the matter of Israel, is it surprising that the majority of Arabs not only want to see Israel destroyed and won't be appeased by any concessions, but this hatred toward Israel is their single most intense emotion? And the same incitement goes on in mosques all over the Middle East and in Europe and the the US. Saudi Arabia spends tens of billions on mosques that practice this sort of agitation, and a former Pakistani diplomat who has visited the US as examined the mosques here was horrified that the radicalization is so far advanced.

Are there Christian and Jewish racists and nutjobs? Of course. But Muslim incitement reaches hundreds of millions and is one of the most important yet ignored aspects of geopolitical reality today. And the overwhelming majority of terrorism (the intentional murder of civilians to achieve a political purpose) is carried out by Muslims explicitly in the name of Islam. All battles Israel fights and has ever fought have been in the context of the Arab Muslim war to eliminate Israel. Saudi Arabia has spent tens of billions of petrodollars on anti-Israel propaganda. Just because the Arabs stopped ganging up on Israel in war after war, in ridiculous ratios of men and equipment, doesn't mean that they grew more "moderate." This is why, to say that you do not want to see Israel always victorious, is abhorrent.

By the way, why do you assume I am religious? I have never been a member of any religion. And why do you assume I watch Fox News? I don't even own a tv. To dismiss every idea you do not share as a product of propaganda is itself often the mark of a person who has been worked by propaganda.

On July 12 2010 01:38 vnlegend wrote:
Singapore is more of a city-state than a country. You can't compare a 5million pop city to a country with 100mil people with rural areas and etc. All those little countries with little pop and mostly urban areas will have good stats, because those stats come from a highly selected population. One can easily say the Harvard campus-state is much smarter than Singapore.

On July 12 2010 00:47 NEWater wrote:
Universal conscription in a multiracial and multicultural environment like Singapore gave me the opportunity to live and hang with Malay Muslims for 2 years and gain valuable insights into Islam and general Muslim culture.

On July 12 2010 04:54 StorkHwaiting wrote:


Um, how does China with its 1 billion+ population have an IQ average of 105 then? It's coz Chinese are great!! Hail to the Chinese!! Hail vic-toe-reeeee!

On July 11 2010 20:57 NEWater wrote:


Sad to say, I've already met my fair share of people at where I work, and my opinion is still the same. The working-class chap from Birmingham might still have a thing or two to say about the Tories, about Thatcher and remark how odd it is that Cameron/Clegg isn't being a huge dick. A mentally-ill dependent I know also expressed this same surprise with me as she put it in her own words:

Our shiny new government has gone round to the local councils and said "Oi! If we pay the mentally ill extra money to cope with life, that does NOT mean you can immediately deduct it from what you give them to pay rent!"

Try talking politics with your average drone in Singapore, and you'd earn a wild-eyed glare of ignorance and fear of discussing such a thing, Maybe an apathetic shrug, or to make things worse, a bleating desperation to change the topic to something vapid like Korean non-culture.

Or indeed, I could try talking politics, or matters of ethics and philosophy with someone educated in a local university, and I'd receive dry-cut General Paper answers and replies.

On July 12 2010 20:49 Klockan3 wrote:

In most countries most Muslims are well adapted, even in the USA. Also just like Christianity Islam got a lot of incitement to violence in its holy book, the only difference is that the Christian countries are secularized enough to not wage religious wars while parts of the Muslim world are not. So of course the well adapted secularized Muslims are not at all aggressive, just like everyone else.

What is dangerous is fundamentalism in non peaceful religions, which today you mostly got just Muslims left with those criteria. Christian and Jew countries are too secularized to have religious fits, Hinduism and Buddhism are not violent so there is just Islam left even though most Muslims aren't militant at all.

If you know your European history you would know that there have been a huge amount of religiously incited wars before secularization began spreading. What people are hoping is that if the Muslims stopped caring so much about their religion there could at last be peace in the middle east, just like what happened in Europe.

Because they just took a couple of hundred kids in each country except for Japan and USA.