Low Hindu IQ......but even lower than Islam's???
RichAsianKid
As background and for everyone's interest, this one's taken from a paper
by Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the
University of Tampere in Finland AND he is also father of the current
Prime Minister of Finland and former President of the European Council
in 2006, Matti Vanhanen.
And also as background we all know India has lower IQ than China (as
well as Japan and Korea and Taiwan needless to say). Posted before:
http://vdare.com/images/042306_ss_pic2.jpg
Yet this paper looks at other variables: human development plotted
against civilization IQ.
Not surprisingly we see again how despicably LOW those Hindus score,
compared to the Chinese and Japanese.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2mhfocz.jpg
But even more revealingly and shock shock shock....: Hindus are even
more stupid than Islam's!!!??????????
BTW RichAsianKid is not mean! No he's not. For India still qualifies for
the Consolation prize:
Hindus are smarter than Africans!!!
Any case, let's meditate. :)
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
Over 34.4 billion US dollars went missing from public funds in China in the
first 11 months of 2009, state media said Tuesday, with national auditors
highlighting embezzlement, waste and fraud.
Over 230 people, including 67 government officials, have been handed over to
disciplinary or judicial authorities for their roles in the missing funds, the
China Daily said, citing the National Audit Office.
The audit covered 99,000 companies, government agencies and public institutions
across the nation, Liu Jiayi, China's top auditor, told a national auditing
conference.
Of the 234.7 billion yuan (34.4 billion US dollars) found missing in the audit,
16.3 billion yuan had already been recovered, it said.
Premier Wen Jiabao told auditors at the conference to step up efforts to tackle
corruption, according to the report.
China's state auditor has the power to review government accounts, but its lack
of law enforcement powers means that many irregularities do not result in
prosecutions.
Beijing vowed to curb corruption in November last year when it launched a
four-trillion-yuan stimulus package to prop up economic growth amid a sharp drop
in demand for exports due to the global financial crisis.
--
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
RichAsianKid
> China says billions missing from public funds
>
> http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/china-says-billions-missing-from-public-funds-20091229-likw.html
>
>
> Over 34.4 billion US dollars went missing from public funds in China in
> the first 11 months of 2009, state media said Tuesday, with national
> auditors highlighting embezzlement, waste and fraud.
>
> Over 230 people, including 67 government officials, have been handed
> over to disciplinary or judicial authorities for their roles in the
> missing funds, the China Daily said, citing the National Audit Office.
>
> The audit covered 99,000 companies, government agencies and public
> institutions across the nation, Liu Jiayi, China's top auditor, told a
> national auditing conference.
>
> Of the 234.7 billion yuan (34.4 billion US dollars) found missing in the
> audit, 16.3 billion yuan had already been recovered, it said.
>
> Premier Wen Jiabao told auditors at the conference to step up efforts to
> tackle corruption, according to the report.
>
> China's state auditor has the power to review government accounts, but
> its lack of law enforcement powers means that many irregularities do not
> result in prosecutions.
>
> Beijing vowed to curb corruption in November last year when it launched
> a four-trillion-yuan stimulus package to prop up economic growth amid a
> sharp drop in demand for exports due to the global financial crisis.
>
Sounds like Jewish MO in America to me, if not recipe for success!
Besides how then China (low I readily admit) still score higher than
India in this now world-famous corruptions perceiving index? What's
corruption anyway? Something you rationalize by crying foul and
rationalize as unfair because you can't network hence unfair?
And if so how is it possible with democracy and English facility India
still lacks so behind China again, doctor? Wouldn't that point to an
even lower Hindu IQ relative to China's?
Grandprix
The author could not even differentiate between religions vs ethnic groups /
races.
"RichAsianKid" <RichAs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhklaf$qm6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
ModerateMallu
Ah, Vanhanen has been added to RAK's pantheon (consisting of Rushton,
and maybe David Duke).
For all the IQ bombast (mostly somebody else's take) that you spew here,
you seem to not have enough IQ to look at the "graph" closely and
question some of it.
I don't give a damn about HDI, or IQ, or whether they are correlated.
However, the constant reference to Chinese IQ (and its implied
"superiority") is getting under my skin.
The "regression plot" provided is all over the map. Firstly, there is a
mix of race and religion, which is way beyond stupid. Secondly, the
graph proves that, given a dataset of any two quantities, one can use MS
Excel (requires minimal IQ), and add any kind of trendline (needs some
IQ, at least more than MS Excel level) to reach any kind of conclusion
one wants (requires on IQ at all).
I thought I'd participate in this stupidity, and so I digitized the
"regression plot" and moved the data (x,y pairs) into Excel. Next, I
made sure that the data were fine by fitting a simple mx+c straight line
through the data. I got back an R-sq of 0.777 as claimed in the JPEG.
Everything good so far. Interesting aside: fit coefficients are written
to 3 decimal place accuracy. Right!!!. :-)
Now I assume that x is "IQ" (some woolly measure, but one which RAK
tries to palm as being valid), and that y is "HDI" (another woolly
measure, with ample room for "spin"), and that they are indeed
correlated. Based on this interpretation of (x,y), one gets a _negative
HDI_ when IQ is zero - stupid conclusion! If one were to put a floor
value of zero on IQ, the minimum "HDI" is 31. This is possible. After
all, most people posting here exhibit zero IQ, yet enjoy a comfortable
"HDI." :-)
Although the "spin" is one must interpret the data that the Chinese are
relatively better off than "Hindus" [sic], the real thing to look for is
the magnitude of the deviations from the curve fit. Do Chinese have an
HDI that is commensurate with the claimed IQ? The answer is, no, and the
underperformance is significant, as is "Judaic" overachievement.
Okay, one objection is the value of R-squared. A value of 0.777 for a
simple linear fit is unacceptably bad. The one fit that make Chinese
look good is simply y = mx [assures y = 0 when x = 0]. But the R-square
for this fit without an intercept is 0.682 (worse than the y = mx+c
fit). Linear fits are silly.
A second fit to try is an exponential one of the form y = ae^(bx), where
a and b are fit constants. The assumption (albeit tenous) is that higher
IQ will mean exponentially higher HDI, and that morons would still have
a non-zero HDI. For the given dataset, I get a = 130.88 and b = 0.0189,
with an R-squared of 0.797 (an improvement over 0.777). However, the
deviation of Chinese HDI is worse with this fit than the linear one(s).
A third fit that I tried is a power law fit y = ax^b, where a and b are
fit constants. Such a fit assures y = 0 when x = 0, i.e., HDI is zero
when IQ is zero. For this fit to the data, I get a = 0.4115 and b =
1.662, with an R-squared of 0.821 (considerable improvement over 0.777).
For this fit, "African," "Hindu", "Buddhist" deviations from the "mean"
are not significant, but the "Chinese" is still very significantly
below, and "Judaic" achievement is still significantly higher.
So, I have completed a quick half-hour bogus study on bogus data, and
reached the bogus conclusion (assuming that IQ and HDI are correlated)
that "Judaic," "Western," "Japanese" achievements are much higher than
the norm (African, Hindu, Buddhist). However, in comparison, Chinese
underachievement is spectacular. How's that for "spin?"
Despite all the claims of "high IQ," RAK seems to have no more than one
song in his repertoire.
RichAsianKid
Thank you for confirming in spite of all your best & Sisyphean
efforts (and much appreciated too btw, seriously!) you have not found IQ
and human development as measured by this 'woolly' HDI index used by the
UN (you may be surprised that I actually agree there too!) is not
related. In fact and way more importantly I'm glad you actually found an
even stronger relationship between the two. Why? Confirms Lynn - in case
you didn't know, this was actually one of the *criticisms* of Lynn by
scientists - that the linear fit he used was (a) arbitrary and (b) not
the quite the most robust; and hence researchers re-worked the data and
used a *logged* GDP vs IQ and confirmed an even stronger relationship
between the two compared to what Lynn published:
http://i49.tinypic.com/rrowpi.jpg
Thanks for independently confirming this.
And funny how Lynn in spite of all the usual labels he had to withstand
(you know, 'racist' etc etc) was actually *understating* his case.
Amazing isn't it?
Moreover, and never mind again this thread is actually more about Hindus
and Muslims, I'd like to know where the *preponderance* of evidence is
that India actually outscores China in IQ, or in human development. I
posted my evidence; and I also agree there are imperfections there. But
if it's so imperfect it should be very easy to post yours, rather than
hysterical "deconstructing". Nowhere did you counter the idea that (a)
Chinese civilization (in this limited context at least) is ahead of
India in HDI as presented, or that (b) Chinese IQ is higher than
India's. Mr (or Ms) MM, you got to do better than this. Because, and
don't forget, there's a whole host of secondary markers that support
China >> India, rather than the other way round. The burden of proof is
on you, not on me. :)
Now. In case the above is too difficult or painful for you, let me take
this one step further and ask not just yourself but anyone and any
poster here this elephant-in-the-room question. Does anyone here on all
these newsgroups doubt that Indians, in general, have *higher* IQ
compared to sub-saharan's Africans's or have lower development than
those Africans. Anyone. What about Indian posters themselves. Again I
invite anyone especially Indian posters here to present counterevidence
to that Africans are in general smarter than Indians or more developed
than Indians, because I find such proposition difficult to argue for.
Indians trumps Africans if you ask me. Perhaps I'm wrong but hey. It's
only 'spin', right, that is, if you can even convince yourself to
believe it...
Mr. ModerateMallu, you wrote: "I don't give a damn about HDI, or IQ, or
whether they are correlated. However, the constant reference to Chinese
IQ (and its implied "superiority") is getting under my skin."
Well. Never mind it's only truth that hurts else you wouldn't have
replied. But as I said on the other thread, this is the real world
(can't deny Vanhanen has political connections!) and not some meditated
and fantasy one. But more importantly you have to look at the big
picture (wrt Indian vs African IQ) if you want to seek the truth - and
not let your confessed petty prejudice against Chinese cloud your better
judgment.
As it so happens RAK simply loves the world as it is. And he loves it
more and more everyday.
Can you look in the mirror and say the same?
Sincerely yours,
RichAsianKid
M. Ranjit Mathews
> Does anyone here on all
> these newsgroups doubt that Indians, in general, have *higher* IQ
> compared to sub-saharan's Africans's or have lower development than
> those Africans. Anyone.
I suspect that there might be some African who can design an IQ test
on which Africans, especially Africans of the tribe that he tunes the
test for, can perform better than arbitrary Indians or Chinese.
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
$34 billion is a lot. Perhaps because gooks are smarter they can be more
corrupt. Or perhaps be better at it.
ModerateMallu
>
> Thank you for confirming in spite of all your best & Sisyphean
> efforts (and much appreciated too btw, seriously!) you have not found IQ
> and human development as measured by this 'woolly' HDI index used by the
> UN (you may be surprised that I actually agree there too!) is not
> related. In fact and way more importantly I'm glad you actually found an
> even stronger relationship between the two. Why? Confirms Lynn - in case
> you didn't know, this was actually one of the *criticisms* of Lynn by
> scientists - that the linear fit he used was (a) arbitrary and (b) not
> the quite the most robust; and hence researchers re-worked the data and
> used a *logged* GDP vs IQ and confirmed an even stronger relationship
> between the two compared to what Lynn published:
>
> http://i49.tinypic.com/rrowpi.jpg
>
> Thanks for independently confirming this.
>
> And funny how Lynn in spite of all the usual labels he had to withstand
> (you know, 'racist' etc etc) was actually *understating* his case.
>
> Amazing isn't it?
>
The allegorical reference that is more appropriate would be that of
Naranath Bhranthan (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naranath_Bhranthan)
and not Sisyphus. After all, this current stupidity of mine in engaging
in a meaningless exercise is purely self-imposed. :-)
Okay, the bogus "civilization IQ" has been replaced with "regular IQ,"
(don't know how much to trust these data), and the equally bogus
"HDI-2002" (yeah, it is bogus even if God decreed it) has been replaced
by logGDP. This switch still does not make the hypothesis, IQ and GDP
are correlated, valid. The scatter in the Lynn data are pretty bad, and
new R-squared value isn't any better. Why the fit shouldn't pass through
(0,0) is a mystery. :-)
The caption is misleading too. Drop the sub-Saharan values and re-fit
the data, and you'll get an R-squared of 0.5-ish with little or no
change in the slope of the linear fits (which do not go through 0,0!).
The only interesting data points are the 4 that are significantly away
from the mean - one Lat. American (Mexico?), one Mid. Eastern (Saudi
Barbaria?), one sub-Saharan (??), and China. If the correlation between
IQ and GDP was very strong, it would indicate a substantially lower IQ
than claimed for China, and substantially higher IQ than claimed for the
other three with the GDP values are taken as "true." Anyways, neither of
these charts confirms anything other than what one wants to see.
I do not believe that IQ and GDP are correlated at all, at least not the
bit about IQ being the sole cause. If anything, the inverse relationship
is a better bet - a higher GDP provides better opportunities/resources
for the general populace (assuming an "enlightened" government), and
will cause IQ to increase. I assume that IQ tests are appropriately
designed and all biases (cultural, language, ...) are taken out of them
to get meaningful data.
> Moreover, and never mind again this thread is actually more about Hindus
> and Muslims, I'd like to know where the *preponderance* of evidence is
> that India actually outscores China in IQ, or in human development. I
> posted my evidence; and I also agree there are imperfections there. But
> if it's so imperfect it should be very easy to post yours, rather than
> hysterical "deconstructing". Nowhere did you counter the idea that (a)
> Chinese civilization (in this limited context at least) is ahead of
> India in HDI as presented, or that (b) Chinese IQ is higher than
> India's. Mr (or Ms) MM, you got to do better than this. Because, and
> don't forget, there's a whole host of secondary markers that support
> China >> India, rather than the other way round. The burden of proof is
> on you, not on me. :)
>
My life does not revolve around "IQ" and how GDP correlates to it. I
couldn't give a damn about Hindu IQ or Muslim IQ. What creative things
you do (for your own or for humanity) with all that IQ is what is
important, and what lasts. Viewed from that angle, there isn't really
any civilization, least of all a Chinese one, although the Western world
(esp. the US) comes pretty damned close to an ideal. I am not going to
get into a pissing match on IQ, at least not in this newsgroup. If you
want to knock yourself out, have at it.
As for "hysterical" deconstruction, I think you are a tad delusional. My
approach to the "hysterical" presentation of the data was rather cold. I
only stated my observations based on what I saw - there is no
correlation in the data (either Vanhanen's or Lynn's), and the Chinese
data are so far below the mean that the claimed IQ is questionable.
Anyways, you've chosen to run with this number, and put a little "spin,"
a little "gloat" to make a nice heady racist cocktail about Chinese
"superiority." Bottoms up, lad!
> Now. In case the above is too difficult or painful for you, let me take
> this one step further and ask not just yourself but anyone and any
> poster here this elephant-in-the-room question. Does anyone here on all
> these newsgroups doubt that Indians, in general, have *higher* IQ
> compared to sub-saharan's Africans's or have lower development than
> those Africans. Anyone. What about Indian posters themselves. Again I
> invite anyone especially Indian posters here to present counterevidence
> to that Africans are in general smarter than Indians or more developed
> than Indians, because I find such proposition difficult to argue for.
> Indians trumps Africans if you ask me. Perhaps I'm wrong but hey. It's
> only 'spin', right, that is, if you can even convince yourself to
> believe it...
>
> Mr. ModerateMallu, you wrote: "I don't give a damn about HDI, or IQ, or
> whether they are correlated. However, the constant reference to Chinese
> IQ (and its implied "superiority") is getting under my skin."
>
Yeah, the same unsolicited worn story day after day gets tiresome (kinda
like country music :-)), and does warrant a response, especially when it
spills into the only newsgroup I read. If you had limited your "stuff"
to relevant groups, you wouldn't have heard from me - out of sight, out
of mind. :-) Anyways, this will be remedied shortly.
It is always amusing to read the writings of the "nouveau riche" -
overnight transformation from rags to riches (mostly unearned) can be
quite intoxicating. This applies to Indians as well, although some are
caught up in a Vedic time warp. :-)
> Well. Never mind it's only truth that hurts else you wouldn't have
> replied. But as I said on the other thread, this is the real world
> (can't deny Vanhanen has political connections!) and not some meditated
> and fantasy one. But more importantly you have to look at the big
> picture (wrt Indian vs African IQ) if you want to seek the truth - and
> not let your confessed petty prejudice against Chinese cloud your better
> judgment.
>
Yeah, having a son for a PM doesn't hurt. Who needs a peer review then,
right? :-)
Living in the US has given me the opportunity to work with people of all
races on this planet. Although, I did not bother to measure IQs and
productivity, my experience is that most people (including Chinese) are
"average" (subjective). For sure there are people who are simply off any
sort of chart, and some that are dumber than doorknobs, but that applies
to _all_ races.
Heh, I am not prejudiced against _all_ Chinese. However, should
low-class crude racist baboons come cruising for a bruising, I will
oblige, and in a language they understand too. :-)
> As it so happens RAK simply loves the world as it is. And he loves it
> more and more everyday.
>
> Can you look in the mirror and say the same?
You bet! A flawed world means room for improvement. ;-)
>
> Sincerely yours,
> RichAsianKid
>
>
Nice chatting with you. I'll leave you to your Sisyphean task of
correlating IQ and GDP. :-)
Cheers
VB
Gods and Monkeys
wrote:
Let's not shift the burden to Africans. I'd like to see an Indian come
up
with a universal testing program that consistently (at global level
with
thousands of data points and multiple generational duration) shows
higher
results for Indians and can be causally explained. BTW, I'm not a
blanket
racist like RAK, I strongly believe in individualism (just not runaway
individualism).
RichAsianKid
In other words and to get to the very core:
1. Is r^2 zero?
2. Since you asked, explain to us stability of IQ in East Asia *despite*
its 20th century socioeconomic surge. Why is East Asian IQ NOT rising in
tandem from prehistory African levels to modern levels anyway? Come on!
http://i45.tinypic.com/2q24nc0.jpg
(2b. Related point: why are rich rich blacks are STILL so dumb compared
to rich rich whites if not even dumber?)
3. Exceptions are never the rule.
Re-read above and expand and let's try this again shall we? You yourself
admitted you came up with your r^2 = 0.777 or 0.797 or 0.821 and now you
run and hide and say there is NO correlation in the data -- That r^2 is
really zero?
Is that your way of running away from your own conclusions?
You're either a liar now, or before. Pure and simple. Tell us how 0.777
or 0.797 or 0.821 = 0.
Wow.
Then you dodged RAK's points (a) and (b) above. I wrote: "Nowhere did
you counter the idea that (a) Chinese civilization (in this limited
context at least) is ahead of India in HDI as presented, or that (b)
Chinese IQ is higher than India's. Mr (or Ms) MM, you got to do
better than this."
Thank you (for nothing?)!
Finally: you don't care much about IQ and GDP and correlations? When in
fact you are the one who proudly admitted you spent so much time coming
up with all those fits and curves?!
You can't have it both ways.
Your credibility has been significantly comprised here!
Why can't you accept China > India anyway?
>
>> Now. In case the above is too difficult or painful for you, let me take
>> this one step further and ask not just yourself but anyone and any
>> poster here this elephant-in-the-room question. Does anyone here on all
>> these newsgroups doubt that Indians, in general, have *higher* IQ
>> compared to sub-saharan's Africans's or have lower development than
>> those Africans. Anyone. What about Indian posters themselves. Again I
>> invite anyone especially Indian posters here to present counterevidence
>> to that Africans are in general smarter than Indians or more developed
>> than Indians, because I find such proposition difficult to argue for.
>> Indians trumps Africans if you ask me. Perhaps I'm wrong but hey. It's
>> only 'spin', right, that is, if you can even convince yourself to
>> believe it...
>>
>> Mr. ModerateMallu, you wrote: "I don't give a damn about HDI, or IQ, or
>> whether they are correlated. However, the constant reference to Chinese
>> IQ (and its implied "superiority") is getting under my skin."
>>
>
> Yeah, the same unsolicited worn story day after day gets tiresome (kinda
> like country music :-)), and does warrant a response, especially when it
> spills into the only newsgroup I read. If you had limited your "stuff"
> to relevant groups, you wouldn't have heard from me - out of sight, out
> of mind. :-) Anyways, this will be remedied shortly.
Reality is that one TV channel you can't change; you can run but you
can't hide.
Ultimately you're not 'fighting' RAK as you well know, you're fighting
yourself. (Or India's fighting itself)
Truth hurts.... :)
>
> It is always amusing to read the writings of the "nouveau riche" -
> overnight transformation from rags to riches (mostly unearned) can be
> quite intoxicating. This applies to Indians as well, although some are
> caught up in a Vedic time warp. :-)
Well not just the whole of East Asia but even the whole world is
relatively NR. The simple point here is a sobering one - that some may
never be.
>
>> Well. Never mind it's only truth that hurts else you wouldn't have
>> replied. But as I said on the other thread, this is the real world
>> (can't deny Vanhanen has political connections!) and not some meditated
>> and fantasy one. But more importantly you have to look at the big
>> picture (wrt Indian vs African IQ) if you want to seek the truth - and
>> not let your confessed petty prejudice against Chinese cloud your better
>> judgment.
>>
>
> Yeah, having a son for a PM doesn't hurt. Who needs a peer review then,
> right? :-)
>
> Living in the US has given me the opportunity to work with people of all
> races on this planet. Although, I did not bother to measure IQs and
> productivity, my experience is that most people (including Chinese) are
> "average" (subjective). For sure there are people who are simply off any
> sort of chart, and some that are dumber than doorknobs, but that applies
> to _all_ races.
>
> Heh, I am not prejudiced against _all_ Chinese. However, should
> low-class crude racist baboons come cruising for a bruising, I will
> oblige, and in a language they understand too. :-)
Differentials matter not least because centifugal congregating based on
race, religion, or just the existence of nations itself, it matters a
big deal.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2wn2uy9.jpg
Based on projections (yeah, projections) of an IQ of China of 100 it
will have 32.47 M people over IQ 130 compared to only 0.96 M projected
from India's. That's 33.8x difference. (I wonder about the accuracy of
the population numbers but if those are an error, they're actually erred
in favor of India, no?)
And on a more micro level (getting away from Indians for a moment)
comparing East Asians and blacks, the ratio of those who are above
average IQ (>110) to those below average IQ (<90) are the following:
3:1 for East Asians
3:36 for blacks
There's simply no comparison.
And which is why even on a micro level in America some communities fly
while others tank.
As for this invented pejorative of "prejudice", read what I wrote in my
blog:
Love of family is normal, natural, and healthy. At least I hope you love
your own more than some stranger's; or is that a little bit too much to
ask? I thought it's part of INdian thought where ancestry matters,
perhaps even more refined within castes on this question.
>
>> As it so happens RAK simply loves the world as it is. And he loves it
>> more and more everyday.
>>
>> Can you look in the mirror and say the same?
>
> You bet! A flawed world means room for improvement. ;-)
>
Then by your very own admission you're not content.
Marx once said: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
And no matter how you may appear or what you're running away from,
you've confessed you're a Marxist at heart.
So go ahead. Fight for the weak and the poor and the dark why pretending
to hide behind "data" like all those environmentalists or animal rights
advocates. Crusade in the name of equality and brotherhood in defiance
of the WTO etc.
Maybe, just maybe, if you look in the mirror and think you're content,
the very first person you should be able to convince is yourself. :)
Cheers,
RichAsianKid
RichAsianKid
The question of cultural bias is always a fall-back, a default, and
never holds water. Afterall:
(1) Japanese, Chinese, Koreans score higher on century-old European and
American derived and normed tests. Ever-discriminated-against Ashkenazi
Jews likewise do. How come?
(2) Then even on less strict "aptitude" tests (highly correlated with IQ
) if society is so very biased against blacks you would never never
ever expect to see this:
http://i48.tinypic.com/kcz02w.jpg
How can a test devised by whites be also biased against whites?
RichAsianKid
Hahaha, let me jump in and respond to that last statement. I think
individualism is ultimately an idealistic and very recent sentiment.
First from the bottom i.e. from a social perspective, you already see
the ravages of affirmative action in the US or in Malaysia all in the
name of "equality" or.... "justice". Like it or not, at some deep
visceral level, losers don't care about anything when they lose. They
don't care about some lofty ideals like fair play or 'individualism';
their people come first and they care only more about their own welfare
or their own group's welfare first.
And from the top i.e. from a biological perspective, why should anyone
consider some piece of century-old paper (unbacked by military force
that is) be even match for ancestral affinity aka 'blood ties' anyway?
Especially if, unlike many religions which compromise, this counters
their own biological impulses? Does anyone here sell off his mother for
$? [Indians might though, sell their children cheaper than buffaloes
though. Hey at least they're honest!]). Just as we don't love our
brothers or children equally as some strangers', how would anyone
without delusions honestly think - AND in spite all evidence to the
contrary - some 'declaration' of equality should be taken more seriously
than common shared history and ancestry and race, especially when the
latter is under threat in some cases?
Here's my take which I posted before:
http://tinyurl.com/7wno46
Or as Rousseau said, the cosmopolitan professes to love all so he'll
have the right to love none.
Gods and Monkeys
> have the right to love none.-
Yes, and how's France doing these days? Look, there are 2 billion
Mongoloids on planet earth. If we really put our minds and hearts
into it, this planet is ours. What is your problem? White people
are pushovers, brown people are meek, the niggers are just dumb.
Why hide?
ModerateMallu
So, r^2 has to be exactly zero for IQ and GDP to be uncorrelated,
else they are correlated? That is stupid. One should use adverbs to
qualify the word "correlated" and state clearly what the acceptable r^2
value is for two quantities to be correlated? Unfortunately, even 0.8 is
not high enough to say two things (esp. the idiotic "civilizational IQ"
and "HDI-2002") are "strongly" correlated, and hence validate/invalidate
a hypothesis (which is a rather simplistic one, if not a downright
stupid one to begin with).
Take any two random quantities, plot their values in Excel and fit the
data. You'll always get a non-zero r^2 value. Does that mean the two
quantities are correlated?
> 2. Since you asked, explain to us stability of IQ in East Asia *despite*
> its 20th century socioeconomic surge. Why is East Asian IQ NOT rising in
> tandem from prehistory African levels to modern levels anyway? Come on!
>
> http://i45.tinypic.com/2q24nc0.jpg
>
> (2b. Related point: why are rich rich blacks are STILL so dumb compared
> to rich rich whites if not even dumber?)
>
Firstly, I would prefer to have the entire articles in which all of your
graphs appear. That helps establish the context, esp. since not people
comprehend English equally well.
Secondly, I would prefer to deal with one dataset/graph at a time. I
have seen "IQ" vs HDI, IQ vs logGDP, and now East Asian IQ vs time -
apples, orange, and pineapples.
Thirdly, despite your deepest desire to make this exchange a pissing
contest about whose "IQ" is better, I will not get into it, simply
because the very basic premise of the argument is flawed. However, I
will look at the data to see how good/bad the fits to the data are, and
get some notion of the quality of the data.
> 3. Exceptions are never the rule.
>
>
Exceptions are _always_ the rule in all sciences, except in mathematics
(by definition :-)), and that's where all the 'thrills' lie.
Hmmm, the claimed superior IQ does not seem to be working today.
The curve fitting exercise was meant to do three things: (1) the dataset
provided would be better fit with a "power law" instead of a thoughtless
(more like stupid) slope-intercept linear fit, (2) the magnitudes of the
deviations from the mean should be looked at, and (3) that the data for
the Chinese "civilization" was such a bad outlier that the claimed IQ
was bogus. If one is to believe your argument that "civilizational IQ"
and HDI are correlated, then the Chinese IQ will have to be
significantly lower. Otherwise you just shot yourself in the foot.
> Then you dodged RAK's points (a) and (b) above. I wrote: "Nowhere did
> you counter the idea that (a) Chinese civilization (in this limited
> context at least) is ahead of India in HDI as presented, or that (b)
> Chinese IQ is higher than India's. Mr (or Ms) MM, you got to do
> better than this."
>
> Thank you (for nothing?)!
>
I did not dodge anything. First, you've got to show me evidence of a
Chinese "civilization." An economy based on manufacturing cheap knock
offs and toxic toys does not count as a "civilization," whatever be the
context. Second, I absolutely refuse to get into a pissing match about
IQ. Based on my personal experience working with people of all races in
the US, I will not make any sweeping (heck, Boolean) statements. That
would be downright dumb.
> Finally: you don't care much about IQ and GDP and correlations? When in
> fact you are the one who proudly admitted you spent so much time coming
> up with all those fits and curves?!
>
> You can't have it both ways.
You constantly flip back and forth between Vanhanen data and
Lynn/Vanhanen data. Whatever is expedient, right?
The logGDP vs IQ dataset is even worse - the scatter is terrible, and
the authors are downright disingenuous when they say that dropping
sub-Saharan data points does not alter the "linear" (real dumb!!) model.
The r^2 goes from 0.69-ish to 0.5-ish doing so - the correlation gets
weaker!!! Here too, the data point flagged as "Chinese" is an outlier
(significantly below the mean). If one were to accept the GDP number to
be correct, _and_ the _hypothesis_ that IQ and GDP are correlated, then
the claimed value of IQ for Chinese is definitely bogus. Damn, the need
to report a three-digit IQ must have been tough on the people that
gathered/analyzed that data.
>
> Your credibility has been significantly comprised here!
Like I said, I only looked at the quality of the data. That said, I do
not really need a "certificate of approval" from you, or anybody else
for that matter.
>
> Why can't you accept China > India anyway?
>
Heh, "greater" in what way? Economically, sure, but only for the moment.
All else, absolutely not.
Thanks much for that "philosophy." One can put that in all public
transport vehicles.
>
>
>>
>> It is always amusing to read the writings of the "nouveau riche" -
>> overnight transformation from rags to riches (mostly unearned) can be
>> quite intoxicating. This applies to Indians as well, although some are
>> caught up in a Vedic time warp. :-)
>
> Well not just the whole of East Asia but even the whole world is
> relatively NR. The simple point here is a sobering one - that some may
> never be.
>
Your POV. Wait until the demographic ages in a few years, and I'll see
what happens. :-)
Words, words, words... anyone can write all of that. What matters are
the actions. Same goes for IQ too - it is what you do with it that
matters. :-)
>>
>>> As it so happens RAK simply loves the world as it is. And he loves it
>>> more and more everyday.
>>>
>>> Can you look in the mirror and say the same?
>>
>> You bet! A flawed world means room for improvement. ;-)
>>
>
> Then by your very own admission you're not content.
>
> Marx once said: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
> various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
And so said many others. Better yet is to accept that "the only thing
that is permanent, is change. Hence learn to adapt, modify, and create."
>
> And no matter how you may appear or what you're running away from,
> you've confessed you're a Marxist at heart.
>
Good one. I fell off my chair laughing.
> So go ahead. Fight for the weak and the poor and the dark why pretending
> to hide behind "data" like all those environmentalists or animal rights
> advocates. Crusade in the name of equality and brotherhood in defiance
> of the WTO etc.
>
Hiding behind data is what you are doing - don't project. I do believe
in environmental protection and animal rights, but I am not militant
about it. I am definitely not into "crusades."
> Maybe, just maybe, if you look in the mirror and think you're content,
> the very first person you should be able to convince is yourself. :)
>
Yeah, I'll spend my life saying, "mirror, mirror, on the wall..." :-)
> Cheers,
> RichAsianKid
>
>
Back at you
VB
P. Rajah
Oddly enough(or perhaps not so oddly), ARAK began his blog by trashing
mainland Chinese versus HK Chinese before he found religion and began
trashing Indians instead:
http://richasiankid.blogspot.com/2006/12/we-all-know-that-average-mainland.html
My surmise is that ARAK began college around that time(2006), and then
ran into Indians on campus who were much smarter than him. "Smarting"
from the offense to his HK Chinese sense of superiority, he then began a
crusade against India/Indians in 2007.
ModerateMallu
Heh, the shock of finding out, that after being the top of one's high
school, one is "e pluribus unum" amongst similar high achievers in a
university happens to all of "average" IQ, I guess. The ones really
gifted will achieve success no matter the odds.
The more amusing thing is that this childish "my IQ is greater than
yours" idea has attracted a little following from low-class
knuckledraggers hoping some of the glory will rub off.
RichAsianKid
I don't think quoting Western writers/philosopher/sources etc should be
regarded as being some treasonous or being some sort of "traitor". ;)
As for how France is doing, I don't know how many carburnings there were
Dec 31 2009, but in Dec 2008:
http://www.connexionfrance.com/petrol-sale-ban-to-reduce-car-arson-attacks-view-article.html
"1,147 cars were set alight over the course of New Year's Eve � the
highest number on record, up 30% on the previous year.
And in 2006 it was ~112 cars every day
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article607860.ece
And during the civil unrest in France in 2005 at one point it was over
1,000 vehicles every night!!
Ah, the flames of "Libert�, �galit�, fraternit�....." (pun intended)
RichAsianKid
WRONG ANSWER.
The following general categories indicate a quick way of interpreting a
calculated r value:
http://www.bized.co.uk/timeweb/crunching/crunch_relate_expl.htm
The strength and significance of the coefficient
0.0 to 0.2 Very weak to negligible correlation
0.2 to 0.4 Weak, low correlation (not very significant)
0.4 to 0.7 Moderate correlation
0.7 to 0.9 Strong, high correlation
0.9 to 1.0 Very strong correlation
And that's r, not r^2. Thus from the r^2 you've quoted, i.e. 0.777 or
0.797 or 0.821, you have to do a sqr-root, i.e. r will be 0.881, 0.893,
and 0.906 respectively.
Well, that all indicates "Strong/high" if not "Very strong" correlation
- read, all above 0.7.
"Using adverbs" huh?
(BTW you're not some engineer who makes only $200K a year or some call
center guy are you? Never mind, don't need to answer that. Actually I
shouldn't have asked....)
Once again, even on this subject that you yourself brought up and now
focus on you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You
specifically wrote: "I do not believe that IQ and GDP are correlated at
all" AFTER you yourself presented your curves and fits.
You're most welcome.
>
>> 2. Since you asked, explain to us stability of IQ in East Asia *despite*
>> its 20th century socioeconomic surge. Why is East Asian IQ NOT rising in
>> tandem from prehistory African levels to modern levels anyway? Come on!
>>
>> http://i45.tinypic.com/2q24nc0.jpg
>>
>> (2b. Related point: why are rich rich blacks are STILL so dumb compared
>> to rich rich whites if not even dumber?)
>>
>
> Firstly, I would prefer to have the entire articles in which all of your
> graphs appear. That helps establish the context, esp. since not people
> comprehend English equally well.
>
> Secondly, I would prefer to deal with one dataset/graph at a time. I
> have seen "IQ" vs HDI, IQ vs logGDP, and now East Asian IQ vs time -
> apples, orange, and pineapples.
>
> Thirdly, despite your deepest desire to make this exchange a pissing
> contest about whose "IQ" is better, I will not get into it, simply
> because the very basic premise of the argument is flawed. However, I
> will look at the data to see how good/bad the fits to the data are, and
> get some notion of the quality of the data.
Well, I was addressing your "a higher GDP provides better
opportunities/resources for the general populace (assuming an
"enlightened" government), and will cause IQ to increase." based on what
you hypothesized.
If what you said is true, as I wrote: "explain to us stability of IQ in
East Asia *despite* its 20th century socioeconomic surge. Why is East
Asian IQ NOT rising in tandem from prehistory African levels to modern
levels anyway? Come on!"
http://i45.tinypic.com/2q24nc0.jpg
That clearly was not the case. You should see IQ rising, like, say,
life-expectancy.
>> 3. Exceptions are never the rule.
>>
>>
>
> Exceptions are _always_ the rule in all sciences, except in mathematics
> (by definition :-)), and that's where all the 'thrills' lie.
>
And Mexico must be a pretty rich country then, richer than the United
States, since at one point in time Carlos Slim was richer than Bill Gates!!
You then obviously mean ALSO that Hindu IQ is an overestimate and has to
be lower since it also falls below the regression line? I see.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2mhfocz.jpg
As for your points here, (1) is likely correct (which is why I provided
a different curve here on Lynn's data and how he actually *understated*
the relationship, that graph was not by Lynn but by someone reanalyzing
Lynn's data) (2) sounds like you don't know how r is calculated (though
individual cases can still be interesting) and (3) as I said above by
your logic Hindu IQ must also be revised lower lower as it's also an
outlier below the curve.
>> Then you dodged RAK's points (a) and (b) above. I wrote: "Nowhere did
>> you counter the idea that (a) Chinese civilization (in this limited
>> context at least) is ahead of India in HDI as presented, or that (b)
>> Chinese IQ is higher than India's. Mr (or Ms) MM, you got to do
>> better than this."
>>
>> Thank you (for nothing?)!
>>
>
> I did not dodge anything. First, you've got to show me evidence of a
> Chinese "civilization." An economy based on manufacturing cheap knock
> offs and toxic toys does not count as a "civilization," whatever be the
> context. Second, I absolutely refuse to get into a pissing match about
> IQ. Based on my personal experience working with people of all races in
> the US, I will not make any sweeping (heck, Boolean) statements. That
> would be downright dumb.
Very interesting, as again, "nowhere did you counter the idea that (a)
Chinese civilization (in this limited context at least) is ahead of
India in HDI as presented, or that (b) Chinese IQ is higher than
India's." But now you're saying other things about Chinese civilization?
That's a funny one. Afterall, let's try this one on India then.
2007: "Indian children suffer more malnutrition than in Ethiopia"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1421393.ece
Followed in 2008: "Malnutrition getting worse in India"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7445570.stm
Tell us again how the above is evidence of modern Indian civilization
anyway if even some of the most basic needs (i.e. foods) cannot be met?
Pity India!
>
>> Finally: you don't care much about IQ and GDP and correlations? When in
>> fact you are the one who proudly admitted you spent so much time coming
>> up with all those fits and curves?!
>>
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
> You constantly flip back and forth between Vanhanen data and
> Lynn/Vanhanen data. Whatever is expedient, right?
>
> The logGDP vs IQ dataset is even worse - the scatter is terrible, and
> the authors are downright disingenuous when they say that dropping
> sub-Saharan data points does not alter the "linear" (real dumb!!) model.
> The r^2 goes from 0.69-ish to 0.5-ish doing so - the correlation gets
> weaker!!! Here too, the data point flagged as "Chinese" is an outlier
> (significantly below the mean). If one were to accept the GDP number to
> be correct, _and_ the _hypothesis_ that IQ and GDP are correlated, then
> the claimed value of IQ for Chinese is definitely bogus. Damn, the need
> to report a three-digit IQ must have been tough on the people that
> gathered/analyzed that data.
NO, because it's not r or r^2 is not 1.00. Strawman - no one will say
that and I will be the first one to say IQ is not 100% correlated with GDP.
Again, do you understand what you're talking about at all?
(Is that why India has so few Math Olympiad winners compared to China,
Korea, Japan? Oh never mind, let's NOT talk about that....)
>
>
>>
>> Your credibility has been significantly comprised here!
>
> Like I said, I only looked at the quality of the data. That said, I do
> not really need a "certificate of approval" from you, or anybody else
> for that matter.
That's fine, but for your info AND education again (link above):
The strength and significance of the coefficient
0.0 to 0.2 Very weak to negligible correlation
0.2 to 0.4 Weak, low correlation (not very significant)
0.4 to 0.7 Moderate correlation
0.7 to 0.9 Strong, high correlation
0.9 to 1.0 Very strong correlation
When you said a 0.7+ correlation is not strong correlation, even after
you spent so much time looking at the data, I find your level of
comprehension wanting. (And yes I'm going to withhold judgment as to
whether your level of comprehension reflects on India's because,
obviously, you can't extrapolate from just one to a billion.)
And one more time: the r or r^2 is NOT 1.00. Get it?
>
>>
>> Why can't you accept China > India anyway?
>>
>
> Heh, "greater" in what way? Economically, sure, but only for the moment.
> All else, absolutely not.
Sure you can meditate and channel your cosmic energy! Leave this world
to the rest. Who wants $ and power anyway. India should enjoy its
meditative innder world and leave this world for others.
You're welcome.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is always amusing to read the writings of the "nouveau riche" -
>>> overnight transformation from rags to riches (mostly unearned) can be
>>> quite intoxicating. This applies to Indians as well, although some are
>>> caught up in a Vedic time warp. :-)
>>
>> Well not just the whole of East Asia but even the whole world is
>> relatively NR. The simple point here is a sobering one - that some may
>> never be.
>>
>
> Your POV. Wait until the demographic ages in a few years, and I'll see
> what happens. :-)
But maybe the future has already been re-written:
2007: "Indian children suffer more malnutrition than in Ethiopia"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1421393.ece
Followed in 2008: "Malnutrition getting worse in India"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7445570.stm
reflects the future, go ahead.
Meditate now: Pigs can fly, right?
Now extend that one step further and think of the folly of egalitarian
ideology. (No this is not the thread for this but just a passing thought.)
>
>>>
>>>> As it so happens RAK simply loves the world as it is. And he loves it
>>>> more and more everyday.
>>>>
>>>> Can you look in the mirror and say the same?
>>>
>>> You bet! A flawed world means room for improvement. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Then by your very own admission you're not content.
>>
>> Marx once said: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
>> various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
>
> And so said many others. Better yet is to accept that "the only thing
> that is permanent, is change. Hence learn to adapt, modify, and create."
>
And do you think low IQ (in general) makes adapting, modifying, and
creating easier?
>>
>> And no matter how you may appear or what you're running away from,
>> you've confessed you're a Marxist at heart.
>>
>
> Good one. I fell off my chair laughing.
>
Just curious.
>> So go ahead. Fight for the weak and the poor and the dark why pretending
>> to hide behind "data" like all those environmentalists or animal rights
>> advocates. Crusade in the name of equality and brotherhood in defiance
>> of the WTO etc.
>>
>
> Hiding behind data is what you are doing - don't project. I do believe
> in environmental protection and animal rights, but I am not militant
> about it. I am definitely not into "crusades."
What about fighting for the weak and the dark (I meant dark-skinned
here) ;) or even...<gasp!> India?