Smart (high IQ) Chinese Fraction vs Indian Fraction
RichAsianKid
And it's interesting RAK came across this while cleaning his drive for
this exciting decade of 2010 -- he stumbled on old evidence of the
consequences of low average Indian IQ and Indian stupidity on the
right-side of the bell curve!
Look at this:
Exhibit (A) http://i46.tinypic.com/2wn2uy9.jpg
Focus on the rightmost column. I know this is based on simple
statistical projections but still:
(1) China has 32.47 M people over IQ 130 projected from a measured IQ of 100
while
(2) India only has 0.96 M projected from hers.
That's 33.8x difference, dear posters.
That's an astronomical mismatch for crying out loud!
Still: the question is what's the real IQ and distribution for China
anyway right?
Tough one. We know from very preliminary & limited data Tibetans are
more stupid than Han Chinese; it makes sense too because we know South
Asians not just Indians but also Nepalese or Sri Lankans or Bangladeshis
are dumber, on average. And we also know Koreans and Japanese and
Taiwanese are pretty smart. Geo gradient therefore fits or at least
consistent.
And since China spans a pretty expansive territory what percentage of
Chinese are really smarter than IQ 130?
Short answer: we don't know precisely. But then RAK also found this
tantalizing bit while cleaning up his harddrive:
Exhibit (B) http://i47.tinypic.com/hrij9j.jpg
Focus on the bottom row. At a sample size of 37,288, the average Chinese
IQ is 103.5 +/- 17.7, but way way way more importantly, focus on the
bottom right cell: 5% of Chinese children scored over 130.
Doesn't sound like much?
Well, now go back & do a big circle and get back to Exhibit (A). Even at
the IQ 105 level (this time in parenthesis as it's projected) China
should - even then - theoretically "only" net 4.85% at the 130 IQ level,
where 69M will transcend this threshold, compared to India's current 0.96M.
That's a 72x difference.
Shocked! Shocked! Shocked!
But still this is yet one more datapoint to file; one more ramification
of how China trumps India, whether by theory or by actual data, and in
spite of all the latter's alleged political and social advantages.
Penang
I have added soc.culture.indian into the list of NG, since it is only
fair that this thread should invite their input as well.
tbj....@yahoo.com
There are lies, damned lies, statistics and RAK pseudo-statistical
rants.
RAK is like a juvenile claiming that "his father can jump from here to
Pluto in one shot".
Ignore RAK. He has no idea about statistics, and thus he chooses any
number which he can spin to his own juvenile and delusional agenda.
RichAsianKid
> Dear RAK,
>
> I have added soc.culture.indian into the list of NG, since it is only
> fair that this thread should invite their input as well.
>
Dear Penang,
That's very kind of you but as you also recall knowing from past
experiences getting Indians from soc.culture.indian involved only adds
more smoke than anything else. Not only are many members of their
newsgroup seemingly psychologically fragile and easily traumatized by
disagreeable facts; some seem to project their own grievances and
insecurities before bursting out to malign and villify and then becoming
hysterical!
I guess in a way soc.culture.indian is entertainment, but unfortunately
less so when IQ is corrected for. :)
Penang
> Penang wrote:
> > Dear RAK,
>
> > I have added soc.culture.indian into the list of NG, since it is only
> > fair that this thread should invite their input as well.
>
> Dear Penang,
>
> That's very kind of you but as you also recall knowing from past
> experiences getting Indians from soc.culture.indian involved only adds
> more smoke than anything else. Not only are many members of their
> newsgroup seemingly psychologically fragile and easily traumatized by
> disagreeable facts; some seem to project their own grievances and
> insecurities before bursting out to malign and villify and then becoming
> hysterical!
>
> I guess in a way soc.culture.indian is entertainment, but unfortunately
> less so when IQ is corrected for. :)
Umm... I came from a country with a lot of Malays and Indians, and
frankly speaking, I am used to that :D
It's called their "World View".
In fact, a local saying --- frog living under a coconut shell (in
local language "Katak di bawah tempurung") --- aptly describe the
extend of their "world".
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
> On Jan 2, 6:23 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Penang wrote:
>>> Dear RAK,
>>> I have added soc.culture.indian into the list of NG, since it is only
>>> fair that this thread should invite their input as well.
>> Dear Penang,
>>
>> That's very kind of you but as you also recall knowing from past
>> experiences getting Indians from soc.culture.indian involved only adds
>> more smoke than anything else. Not only are many members of their
>> newsgroup seemingly psychologically fragile and easily traumatized by
>> disagreeable facts; some seem to project their own grievances and
>> insecurities before bursting out to malign and villify and then becoming
>> hysterical!
>>
>> I guess in a way soc.culture.indian is entertainment, but unfortunately
>> less so when IQ is corrected for. :)
>
> Umm... I came from a country with a lot of Malays and Indians, and
> frankly speaking, I am used to that :D
>
> It's called their "World View".
>
> In fact, a local saying --- frog living under a coconut shell (in
> local language "Katak di bawah tempurung") --- aptly describe the
> extend of their "world".
And prawn brain describes the Malay mentality.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
P. Rajah
> Dear RAK,
>
> I have added soc.culture.indian into the list of NG, since it is only
> fair that this thread should invite their input as well.
What for? ARAK is the one with the mental illness that drives him to
keep seeking "evidence" for alleged Chinese superiority. Does he ever
post anything else? Everything that he has postulated has been rebutted,
and the fundamental explanation I had asked for wrt China's performance
prior to 1972 in the context of superior IQ has met with a great wall of
silence from ARAK. I recall that he had written that Indians were
obsessed with comparing themselves to China, but the truth is that ARAK
is the one with that problem. We in sci don't need to coddle his sickness.
RichAsianKid
> On Jan 2, 6:23 pm,RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Penang wrote:
> > > Dear RAK,
>
> > > I have added soc.culture.indian into the list of NG, since it is only
> > > fair that this thread should invite their input as well.
>
> > Dear Penang,
>
> > That's very kind of you but as you also recall knowing from past
> > experiences getting Indians from soc.culture.indian involved only adds
> > more smoke than anything else. Not only are many members of their
> > newsgroup seemingly psychologically fragile and easily traumatized by
> > disagreeable facts; some seem to project their own grievances and
> > insecurities before bursting out to malign and villify and then becoming
> > hysterical!
>
> > I guess in a way soc.culture.indian is entertainment, but unfortunately
> > less so when IQ is corrected for. :)
>
> Umm... I came from a country with a lot of Malays and Indians, and
> frankly speaking, I am used to that :D
>
> It's called their "World View".
>
> In fact, a local saying --- frog living under a coconut shell (in
> local language "Katak di bawah tempurung") --- aptly describe the
> extend of their "world".
Here's an article posted before on the comparison between Chinese and
Indians outside their home countries: this time in Malaysia --
http://vdare.com/taylor/080929_malaysia.htm
"The Bumiputra Program does not take class into consideration, so the
children of Malay millionaires get the inside track on boardroom
posts,
overseas scholarships, business licenses and plum government jobs.
Minorities don’t like the system, but there is little they can do in a
country that is majority Malay.
"The Chinese are thriving despite the quotas. They keep quiet about
their wealth but work harder than ever. Are they shut out of
universities? They send their children to school in Australia or the
United States. Can’t join the civil service? They get better-paying
jobs
as lawyers, accountants, and doctors in private hospitals. Have to
sell
30 percent of the company to bumiputras? They still keep control, and
use their legendary commercial skills to dominate the wholesale and
import/export trades.
"The Indians get the scraps. Many had lost their old jobs as rubber
tappers or oil-palm farmers, as plantations were converted to housing
estates and golf courses for rich Malays and Chinese. A few Hindu
temples have been torn down to make way for highways, which makes
Indians furious. But their biggest complaint is the quota system that
keeps them out of universities."
:
:
:
* * "The crucial factor no one talks about—either in Malaysia or in
the
United States—is IQ. The average IQ for the Malays and Indians is
about 87 while that of the Chinese is around 103. That is why the
Chinese thrive despite the Bumiputra Program but the Indians don’t." *
*
Comment: interesting, and while the Indian figure of 87 is higher it's
still considerably lower than Chinese/East Asian's. Selection
migration?
Difficult to know without further data.
The point however: 103-87 = 16 points, roughly the
magnitude of the white-black gap in the US.
tbj....@yahoo.com
What does IQ measure? And how? Does RAK have the "IQ" to know the
nature of IQ tests and its relevance to human progress? Of course not.
Does RAK know statistics? Heck no. Does RAK know what he is talking
about? Only in his own delusions.
RAK's "facts" are not facts at all. But being a juvenile he doesn't
know the difference between reality and fiction.
How is it that India can manage a hundred ethnic groups in a
democratic fashion, but China kills its minorities? Is it a
representation of "high IQ scores" to kill rather than accommodate?
RichAsianKid
>> country that is majority Malay.
>>
>> "The Chinese are thriving despite the quotas. They keep quiet about
>> their wealth but work harder than ever. Are they shut out of
>> universities? They send their children to school in Australia or the
>> jobs
>> as lawyers, accountants, and doctors in private hospitals. Have to
>> sell
>> 30 percent of the company to bumiputras? They still keep control, and
>> use their legendary commercial skills to dominate the wholesale and
>> import/export trades.
>>
>> "The Indians get the scraps. Many had lost their old jobs as rubber
>> tappers or oil-palm farmers, as plantations were converted to housing
>> estates and golf courses for rich Malays and Chinese. A few Hindu
>> temples have been torn down to make way for highways, which makes
>> Indians furious. But their biggest complaint is the quota system that
>> keeps them out of universities."
>> :
>> :
>> :
>> the
>> United States�is IQ. The average IQ for the Malays and Indians is
>> about 87 while that of the Chinese is around 103. That is why the
Oh America was a superpower way before the civil rights movement. And
now with the proliferation of rights America is continue to ceding its
world share of wealth. Why would you even begin to think that importing
say a hundred million Mbuti Pygmies will enrich India or just about any
other country on earth. Why would you think that at all?
joyo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that why you did the space thing about 60 years after the main
events from countries and peoples with lower IQ (100). And celebrated
it like you did it first...and still going on stealing sprees for
technologies from lower IQ nations. And all the while your women only
want White men?
Why Mr Penang, you sure are losers....
And btw do these millions lip synch and tap dance?
P. Rajah
Why would you think that's what he was suggesting? Why would you think
that at all? You sure come across as someone determined to destroy the
perception of Chinese intelligence, and turn it into an oxymoron.
RichAsianKid
Why don't you let him answer? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
Any case, isn't "diversity" supposed to be a wonderful thing? You know,
democracy, rights, holding hands in love, singing kumbaya, cuddling in
the brotherhood of man etc. Hey, the-more-the-merrier type gush etc.
Isn't this how those proud proud little 2-digit-IQ brown Indians (dot,
not feather) pride themselves on?
Well, here's the superpower of world and its history in just one state:
http://i30.tinypic.com/28ap2fq.jpg
Now, China is behind the US in terms of nation-building - perhaps by as
much as a century or so. Why shouldn't it follow this tried-and-true
formula of the US at *its* corresponding stage of development?
And once again and to repeat myself, I draw attention to this fact: US
was a superpower by the end of WWII, and that's 20 years before all this
hippy-happy cushy-mushy talk of 'civil rights'. And the share of world
wealth of the US is also perceptibly declining as we speak, in spite of
its increasing population and increasing diversity.
Who knows, maybe lower IQ people are more prone to fantasy and ideology,
and are more gullible and more easily duped.
PS - one more thing - so far the evidence demonstrates the US has higher
average IQ scores than India
P. Rajah
Why don't you answer _his_ question rather than imputing to him
something he didn't say or imply? As always, you use diversionary
tactics to avoid uncomfortable facts.
> Any case, isn't "diversity" supposed to be a wonderful thing? You know,
> democracy, rights, holding hands in love, singing kumbaya, cuddling in
> the brotherhood of man etc. Hey, the-more-the-merrier type gush etc.
> Isn't this how those proud proud little 2-digit-IQ brown Indians (dot,
> not feather) pride themselves on?
>
> Well, here's the superpower of world and its history in just one state:
>
> http://i30.tinypic.com/28ap2fq.jpg
War tactics that were acceptable in the past are no longer so. This is
the 21st century, when offering bounties for heads of inconvenient
locals is unacceptable. Even colonizing other countries has become
internationally distasteful, and China's colonization of Tibet stands as
a wart on the face of modern humanity.
> Now, China is behind the US in terms of nation-building - perhaps by as
> much as a century or so. Why shouldn't it follow this tried-and-true
> formula of the US at *its* corresponding stage of development?
For one, China's nation-building culminated ages ago a couple of
thousand years before the USA came into being. For another, we no longer
live in times when such tactics are seen as acceptable, as I mentioned
above.
> And once again and to repeat myself, I draw attention to this fact: US
> was a superpower by the end of WWII, and that's 20 years before all this
> hippy-happy cushy-mushy talk of 'civil rights'. And the share of world
> wealth of the US is also perceptibly declining as we speak, in spite of
> its increasing population and increasing diversity.
>
> Who knows, maybe lower IQ people are more prone to fantasy and ideology,
> and are more gullible and more easily duped.
And you think you can dupe everyone with your nonsense? The share of the
US in global wealth is declining because other countries are now
creating their own wealth. Global wealth is not a fixed sum, as anyone
with more than half a brain should know.
> PS - one more thing - so far the evidence demonstrates the US has higher
> average IQ scores than India
Why are you so obsessed with India? First you trashed mainland
Chinese(in 2006), probably because your parents came from Hong Kong, and
now you are on a mission to trash India, because you have a
un-redeemingly low self-esteem. Hong Kong, btw, scored far higher than
Beijing residents in IQ, and even more that the peasants who make up the
bulk of China. Makes you wonder how the British were able to take the
low-IQ Chinese laborers they imported into Hong Kong, and raise their IQ
well above everyone in mainland China. It took more than a century to do
it, but let's give credit where it is due.
RichAsianKid
Point still stands...
I guess we should await his reply?
>
>
>> Any case, isn't "diversity" supposed to be a wonderful thing? You
>> know, democracy, rights, holding hands in love, singing kumbaya,
>> cuddling in the brotherhood of man etc. Hey, the-more-the-merrier type
>> gush etc. Isn't this how those proud proud little 2-digit-IQ brown
>> Indians (dot, not feather) pride themselves on?
>>
>> Well, here's the superpower of world and its history in just one state:
>>
>> http://i30.tinypic.com/28ap2fq.jpg
>
> War tactics that were acceptable in the past are no longer so. This is
> the 21st century, when offering bounties for heads of inconvenient
> locals is unacceptable. Even colonizing other countries has become
> internationally distasteful, and China's colonization of Tibet stands as
> a wart on the face of modern humanity.
And in the 21st century, please please please, ask Iraqis how they feel,
or how many internationally may 'disapprove' of American power etc etc.
"Distasteful" as you objected? You like sipping Sherry when "war tactics
that were acceptable in the past are no longer so"? Question: when in
war was winning no longer the (or an) objective?
>
>
>> Now, China is behind the US in terms of nation-building - perhaps by as
>> much as a century or so. Why shouldn't it follow this tried-and-true
>> formula of the US at *its* corresponding stage of development?
>
> For one, China's nation-building culminated ages ago a couple of
> thousand years before the USA came into being. For another, we no longer
> live in times when such tactics are seen as acceptable, as I mentioned
> above.
>
>
So now you're fighting BOTH America and China?! Is that even you, Mr. Rajah?
>> And once again and to repeat myself, I draw attention to this fact: US
>> was a superpower by the end of WWII, and that's 20 years before all
>> this hippy-happy cushy-mushy talk of 'civil rights'. And the share of
>> world wealth of the US is also perceptibly declining as we speak, in
>> spite of its increasing population and increasing diversity.
>>
>> Who knows, maybe lower IQ people are more prone to fantasy and
>> ideology, and are more gullible and more easily duped.
>
> And you think you can dupe everyone with your nonsense? The share of the
> US in global wealth is declining because other countries are now
> creating their own wealth. Global wealth is not a fixed sum, as anyone
> with more than half a brain should know.
>
Fact: US was a superpower by the end of WWII, and that's 20 years before
all this hippy-happy cushy-mushy talk of 'civil rights'. And the share
of world wealth of the US is also perceptibly declining as we speak, in
spite of its increasing population and increasing diversity.
Rationalizations are mere secondary, sir.
>
>> PS - one more thing - so far the evidence demonstrates the US has
>> higher average IQ scores than India
>
> Why are you so obsessed with India? First you trashed mainland
> Chinese(in 2006), probably because your parents came from Hong Kong, and
> now you are on a mission to trash India, because you have a
> un-redeemingly low self-esteem. Hong Kong, btw, scored far higher than
> Beijing residents in IQ, and even more that the peasants who make up the
> bulk of China. Makes you wonder how the British were able to take the
> low-IQ Chinese laborers they imported into Hong Kong, and raise their IQ
> well above everyone in mainland China. It took more than a century to do
> it, but let's give credit where it is due.
>
>
We see Mr. Rajah can't quite explain America has higher IQ than India still.
How come? :)
Moorthy
One does not need any figure to show that as of here and now Chinese
are outsmarting Indians and the world.
1. By keeping their currency fixed and helping their export they are
gaining employment at the world's expense
2. In case of Indians, just look at the Chinese export basket (all
manufactured good and many heavily subsidised many trimes over) whilst
export by retarded Indians is all in the form of raw material (iron
ore export is really ironic!)
3. Despite treating Muslims as pile of dirt, summarily executing them,
shutting down mosques and summary execution, still manange to convince
Islamists that they are their friend.
4. Used shear will to explode hydrogen bomb, even when US presidential
nominee Barry Goldwater had considered nuclear strikes.
5. Managed to occupy Tibet, Indian territory and Inner Mongolia and
still gunning in for more Indian, Japanese and EAsian territories.
Gods and Monkeys
6. Making crackers consume and create self-flagelating race-confession
swill like "Avatar".
7. Controlling the spin rate of the cracker/nigger merry-go-round and
making it seem as natural as yin-yang.
8. Outright takeover (save for Jews) of cracker high prestige
educational institutions- MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Stanford,
Berkeley, UCLA (actually wasn't so high prestige before, but it is
NOW) and making an outcast of the one they didn't - Yale.
9. Speaking of Jews! Turning Israel into a military technology ally
and world-view butt-buddy.
10. Resource, heart, mind, sex takeover of Africa. Continental
cannibalism!
11. Bitch turn of India from west to east. Take that Hindoo doo!
P. Rajah
> P. Rajah wrote:
>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>>
>>> P. Rajah wrote:
>>>> RichAsianKid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tbj....@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
When you haven't replied to his question? And no, your "point" doesn't
stand, because it never was a point. It was a false imputation to him,
bundled in your usual evasive way with irrelevant remarks on unrelated
topics, instead of addressing his question.
>>> Any case, isn't "diversity" supposed to be a wonderful thing? You
>>> know, democracy, rights, holding hands in love, singing kumbaya,
>>> cuddling in the brotherhood of man etc. Hey, the-more-the-merrier
>>> type gush etc. Isn't this how those proud proud little 2-digit-IQ
>>> brown Indians (dot, not feather) pride themselves on?
>>>
>>> Well, here's the superpower of world and its history in just one state:
>>>
>>> http://i30.tinypic.com/28ap2fq.jpg
>>
>> War tactics that were acceptable in the past are no longer so. This is
>> the 21st century, when offering bounties for heads of inconvenient
>> locals is unacceptable. Even colonizing other countries has become
>> internationally distasteful, and China's colonization of Tibet stands as
>> a wart on the face of modern humanity.
>
> And in the 21st century, please please please, ask Iraqis how they feel,
> or how many internationally may 'disapprove' of American power etc etc.
> "Distasteful" as you objected? You like sipping Sherry when "war tactics
> that were acceptable in the past are no longer so"? Question: when in
> war was winning no longer the (or an) objective?
Has Iraq become a colony of the US? If you had any marbles left in your
head, you would understand that I am not questioning whether winning a
war should be an objective, but rather why the war is fought.
Btw, when is Tibet going to get its own independent government again?
>>> Now, China is behind the US in terms of nation-building - perhaps by as
>>> much as a century or so. Why shouldn't it follow this tried-and-true
>>> formula of the US at *its* corresponding stage of development?
>>
>> For one, China's nation-building culminated ages ago a couple of
>> thousand years before the USA came into being. For another, we no longer
>> live in times when such tactics are seen as acceptable, as I mentioned
>> above.
>>
>>
>
> So now you're fighting BOTH America and China?! Is that even you, Mr.
> Rajah?
I have one question for you: are you playing with a full deck? It seems
like they let you out of the nut-house every so often. Your remarks
absolutely lack context to what I have written. And using your usual
evasive tactics, you have dodged the fact that your assertion on when
China became a nation is completely fallacious, and that China as a
nation is, in fact, far older than the US.
>>> And once again and to repeat myself, I draw attention to this fact: US
>>> was a superpower by the end of WWII, and that's 20 years before all
>>> this hippy-happy cushy-mushy talk of 'civil rights'. And the share of
>>> world wealth of the US is also perceptibly declining as we speak, in
>>> spite of its increasing population and increasing diversity.
>>>
>>> Who knows, maybe lower IQ people are more prone to fantasy and
>>> ideology, and are more gullible and more easily duped.
>>
>> And you think you can dupe everyone with your nonsense? The share of the
>> US in global wealth is declining because other countries are now
>> creating their own wealth. Global wealth is not a fixed sum, as anyone
>> with more than half a brain should know.
>>
>
> Fact: US was a superpower by the end of WWII, and that's 20 years before
> all this hippy-happy cushy-mushy talk of 'civil rights'. And the share
> of world wealth of the US is also perceptibly declining as we speak, in
> spite of its increasing population and increasing diversity.
>
> Rationalizations are mere secondary, sir.
No, lack of "rationalization", i.e., lack of perspective is what lends
pseudo-credibility to ill-wrought theories.
Here's one for you: the ratio of income between the richest Chinese and
the poorest Chinese has skyrocketed(some 20 million Chinese live on less
than $8/month). So:
(a) The richest Chinese have seen a dramatic increase in IQ and are now
super-geniuses or
(b) The poorest Chinese have seen a dramatic decline in IQ and have now
become cretins.
Your answer is a or b?
>>> PS - one more thing - so far the evidence demonstrates the US has
>>> higher average IQ scores than India
>>
>> Why are you so obsessed with India? First you trashed mainland
>> Chinese(in 2006), probably because your parents came from Hong Kong, and
>> now you are on a mission to trash India, because you have a
>> un-redeemingly low self-esteem. Hong Kong, btw, scored far higher than
>> Beijing residents in IQ, and even more that the peasants who make up the
>> bulk of China. Makes you wonder how the British were able to take the
>> low-IQ Chinese laborers they imported into Hong Kong, and raise their IQ
>> well above everyone in mainland China. It took more than a century to do
>> it, but let's give credit where it is due.
>>
>>
>
> We see Mr. Rajah can't quite explain America has higher IQ than India
> still.
>
> How come? :)
For one, I have never disputed that, nor made a claim with regard to
that. On the other hand, you have over and over and over again failed to
explain the disparity in _your own_ assertion that national IQ dictates
national income, when China stands so spectacularly behind almost 100
other countries in per capita income, despite the alleged super IQ and
self-government for many, many centuries. Furthermore, I have tried to
drive some sense into your head wrt the IQ issue, which you absolutely
ignore. You have spectacularly failed to explain why China, with its
superlative, blows-everyone-else-away IQ still lags so badly behind
nearly 100 countries in per-capita income, barely keeping ahead of
cretinous India, and severely lagging stalwart sub-70-IQ countries such
as Equatorial Guinea(IQ estimate of 59!), Gabon and Botswana. Why is
that, Mr. ARAK? Why? Why? Why? Wasn't your thesis "Higher IQ= Higher
Income"?
And I observe that you fail, yet and yet again, to explain how HK
Chinese score so much higher than Chinese peasants in IQ, and instead
retort with a complete non sequitur.
RichAsianKid
We'll still wait for his reply then.
>
>
>>>> Any case, isn't "diversity" supposed to be a wonderful thing? You
>>>> know, democracy, rights, holding hands in love, singing kumbaya,
>>>> cuddling in the brotherhood of man etc. Hey, the-more-the-merrier
>>>> type gush etc. Isn't this how those proud proud little 2-digit-IQ
>>>> brown Indians (dot, not feather) pride themselves on?
>>>>
>>>> Well, here's the superpower of world and its history in just one state:
>>>>
>>>> http://i30.tinypic.com/28ap2fq.jpg
>>>
>>> War tactics that were acceptable in the past are no longer so. This is
>>> the 21st century, when offering bounties for heads of inconvenient
>>> locals is unacceptable. Even colonizing other countries has become
>>> internationally distasteful, and China's colonization of Tibet stands as
>>> a wart on the face of modern humanity.
>>
>> And in the 21st century, please please please, ask Iraqis how they feel,
>> or how many internationally may 'disapprove' of American power etc
>> etc. "Distasteful" as you objected? You like sipping Sherry when "war
>> tactics that were acceptable in the past are no longer so"? Question:
>> when in war was winning no longer the (or an) objective?
>
> Has Iraq become a colony of the US? If you had any marbles left in your
> head, you would understand that I am not questioning whether winning a
> war should be an objective, but rather why the war is fought.
>
> Btw, when is Tibet going to get its own independent government again?
>
http://i48.tinypic.com/2cpq5bn.jpg
Oh btw, how many Iraqis were killed in the 21st century from the war?
100K? 1M? Or as General Tommy Franks said: "We don't do body counts".
Mr. Rajah, RichAsianKID says, grow up.
>
>>>> Now, China is behind the US in terms of nation-building - perhaps by as
>>>> much as a century or so. Why shouldn't it follow this tried-and-true
>>>> formula of the US at *its* corresponding stage of development?
>>>
>>> For one, China's nation-building culminated ages ago a couple of
>>> thousand years before the USA came into being. For another, we no longer
>>> live in times when such tactics are seen as acceptable, as I mentioned
>>> above.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So now you're fighting BOTH America and China?! Is that even you, Mr.
>> Rajah?
>
> I have one question for you: are you playing with a full deck? It seems
> like they let you out of the nut-house every so often. Your remarks
> absolutely lack context to what I have written. And using your usual
> evasive tactics, you have dodged the fact that your assertion on when
> China became a nation is completely fallacious, and that China as a
> nation is, in fact, far older than the US.
>
So China is stronger then, not weaker as you're now implying
(conceding?). By virtue of what you said and if what you said is so
true then, why would you even expect that current American state of
affairs or MO as if its some gospel, including but not limited to its
proselytizing of "equality" or "democracy", just not be yet another
brief historical interlude - another flouted or flaunted idea - in the
greater context of the world, in the greater context of human history?
What's so easily 'constructed' can also be easily deconstructed.
Or put more simply and concretely if you don't understand the point: if
this American idea of diversity is so great so wonderful so enriching
etc etc, that everyone will hold hands singing kumbaya, why should India
not import more Muslims onto its own very soil just to enrich it.
Why not?
Oh I agree richer Chinese are smarter than poor Chinese. That's just
common sense. In fact, richer people in general have higher IQ than
poorer people. Indians not excluded. It has nothing to do with
'increasing' IQ or not. (Don't pretend to be stupid)
But again if we're all equal, the question is this: should India import
more low IQ Muslims, i.e. more diversity, to make it stronger, a la
America. Yes or no. Very simple question. You want RAK's answer? His
answer is "no". Agree or disagree? India should NOT import more Muslims
into India. Feel free to disagree though.
The winner needs no explanation.
But hey at least Mr. Rajah agrees America has higher IQ than India. Very
nice! (Hey whoever sez plebian newsgroups ain't productive??)
And if it's any consolation prize, India can probably strive for being
like some Brazil in the future.
Arindam Banerjee
So which Indian wants to be in the shoes of which Chinese?
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
P. Rajah
continues his display of duplicity, evasiveness and generally juvenile
intellect. A total time-waster with not an ounce of commonsense or that
"cognitive ability" he keeps bragging about.
RichAsianKid
> I see ARAK hasn't answered a single goddamn question put to him, and
> continues his display of duplicity, evasiveness and generally juvenile
> intellect. A total time-waster with not an ounce of commonsense or that
> "cognitive ability" he keeps bragging about.
Ah, once again that tell-all final desperation of top-posting by Mr. Rajah.
We see.
CeeTee
Hi:
I am not Asian but I agree with your position on Chinese/east Asian
superiority. In your opinion, why are Asians superior to other groups
in terms of intellect and behavior? is it due to genetics (better
brains) or simply a question of better cultural values.